Whatever? Ok....

quote:

Originally posted by mikeheenan:
Whatever? Ok....

An attempt to dispute your post but not to go off topic. Addressing the flawed barstool philosophy here would derail the thread. Oops...

The message here is that one's personal flying habits can significantly increase one's CO2 emissions.

If you think Climate Change is overblown, just don't care about it, or consider it some crazed left wing conspiracy to make you all hugs trees, eat grass and live in biodegradable tents...well, that's that. If this is the case, just say so.

But if you do care, like I do, then you should be honest with yourself about how much damage your flying does to the atmosphere. Telling yourself "my 60k miles last year on United is really no big deal because I live in America and it is a big country", well, that would be disingenuous.

All of us have different hobbies. Some have more of an effect on the environment than others. For example, somebody who is into gardening and solar panel design probably uses less energy than somebody into global travel, who probably uses less energy than somebody into personal aviation. Rather than giving these things up, I think the best thing to do is to examine our lifestyle and see what changes we can make WITHIN that way of living.

Some of us will use more than others. That's simply reality. But we can each find ways to do things more efficiently and use less.

As for my personal thoughts on climate change, I'm kind of agnostic right now. I used to very much "believe" in anthropogenic global warming; I wouldn't say I deny it today, but I'm not totally sure. Not long ago, after all, we were worried about global cooling. And whether global warming will turn out to be a good or bad thing I doubt anybody knows for certain.

Also, I think the kind of "travelling" we people do makes up a fairly small portion of overall flight emissions. A lot of people up there are flying on a very regular basis (every other week, every week) for business, and many people fly several times a year to meet family in other parts of the country, etc. (in the U.S. or Canada - I'm not sure if people fly from Manchester to London!)

As for Brits and other Europeans producing less emissions per person, I think it's:

1) Housing - European housing is small by American standards. Average house in Britain is around 820 ft^2; in the U.S. it's more like 2000. Other European countries have larger homes, but I don't think any exceed 1000 ft^2 on average; that would be considered a small house in the U.S. And newer suburban houses are often HUGE ... 3500 ft^2 for 4 people is not unusual.

2)Driving - Most Americans drive to work. I'm sure many Europeans do as well, but Americans tend to live farther away from work (50+ mi commutes not uncommon in some areas) and drive less efficient, larger vehicles (15 mpg not uncommon).

3)Heating and Air Conditioning - Most U.S. locations have a climate that is far more extreme than most populated European places. Most locations have extremes both of heat and cold not found in the majority of Europe. London, for example, rarely sees temperatures very far below freezing, and 30 C + is also rare there, only happening a few times in recent years; whereas many U.S. locations spend much of the winter well below freezing, even in the daytime, and on the other hand, experience hot summers with long stretches of 30 C. Temperature-wise, the average U.S. location is more exciting than the average E.U. location. This means more of a demand for heating and A/C.

4)Simple conservation - Simply put, Americans don't seem to have as much of a conservation mentality as Europeans. This is in part because electricity here is cheaper.

quote:

So, how about the gas tax with a regulatory requirement on the level of CO2 an engine produces?

How about just taxing it based on the amount of carbon in the fuel you use. It would give you a theoretical maximum of CO2 one could produce and it would reward the use of more efficient engines.

Personally, though if you are going to talk about a carbon tax, I would like it see it imposed everywhere, and yes that means on the fuel individuals use as well. I don't see why the airlines should have to pay a disproportionate share.

Alternatively, if one just wants to go after the airlines, it might be more appropriate to charge them a jet entrails tax instead. Since the entrails may have just as much impact on global warming as the CO2 an airplane generates.

quote:

But if you do care, like I do, then you should be honest with yourself about how much damage your flying does to the atmosphere. Telling yourself "my 60k miles last year on United is really no big deal because I live in America and it is a big country", well, that would be disingenuous.

Well put. The only thing I hate worst than this is travelers claiming that their green lifestyle at home offsets their intercontinental airline travel. Hence they're not a CO2 whore and it all equals out. As Stoo mentioned earlier, this just isn't true. Just stop rationalizing and come to grips with your CO2 useage.

Thanks for the responses; the reason I asked the question is due to me being undecided about the issue and I wanted to see what other traveler fans thought.

The protest in the UK has certainly done its job by raising my awareness of the issue, so much so I did an article at Newsvine about the groups behind the protest. If you're interested it is here

quote:

I am a skeptic that letting the free market resolve these issues without help, believe rationing just does not work, and think the few of us trying to live green are really just making a token effort in the global sense. I support all sorts of things that would make people consider different, greener options: carbon taxes, tightened air travel regulation (from efficiency to noise to service levels to seat space), rail infrastructure subsidies, etc.

I agree; the free market will never mean we drive less or consume less. The nature of the world economy at the moment is that it needs consumers borrowing and spending without limit. The only way Air travel will slow down due to market forces over the long term would be after its too late and environmental concerns force the issue (Floods, Hurricanes, general Armageddon scenarios)

I have little hope for carbon offsets, although it is at least an attempt to ration Aviators. Perhaps we could all get a certain amount of air miles a year (3000km?) and after that we need to pay extra for the carbon offset, similar to taxes on incomes. Airlines already offer voluntary extra surcharges on tickets which they say are for "carbon offsets" (I guess planting a tree) I don't trust them enough though that they don't just pocket the extra cash in charity taxes. Will we start seeing premium flights offering carbon offsets that are "Green" similar to Organic food? An excuse to charge more(?)

quote:

Do remember that as Ryanair claims, less than 2 % of the world's CO2 admissions come from planes. We can change this habit but getting people to stop being wasteful in the everyday lives would help the other 98%...

Ryanair claiming 2% pretty much garentees its more than that; Ryanair must have a very biased view since they are making bundles of cash encouraging people that flying is good.

The Climate Action groups say 17% of UK carbon emissions are due to air travel, and that figure is increasing as more flights are available. They no doubt over estimate the figure, if anyone has a more neutral reliable source to link to I'd be interested.

I think the facts are there that travel takes a significant amount of carbon footprints on the planet and for those travelers such as myself who are looking to be as "green" as possible they need to be aware of it. I didn't know that it was as much as 6 months of living in the UK, that is shocking.

At the moment I'm thinking to use the train or boat whenever possible (not to bad since I love the idea of it if I'm not in a hurry) and save air travel for the inter continental.

quote:

I dont see any problem with it. Leisure travel on the whole is not the problem, if I decide to take 3 flights a year across the world fine, not much impact.

Very interesting discussion, but I don't have the time or energy to address much of it! I do believe the above statement is part of the 'problem.' (and I certainly don't intend to target anyone in particular, it's just a very common mentality)

I absolutely know every action I take impacts things to some degree. Granted, if I were the ONLY one with the above attitude, and everyone else ceased flying as much, then things would get a lot better. BUT if everyone out there is using the same rationalization, ie 'It's not me that's the problem, it's X and Y and Z', then no one's changing any of their habits, and nothing changes. The world continues as is.

I don't have a solution, obviously as Annie hinted, it's pretty complex and ties to all sorts of bigger issues. But I do think it's important to recognize that our 1-3 vacation trips a year are part of the problem.

quote:

Originally posted by White Knight:
I agree; the free market will never mean we drive less or consume less. The nature of the world economy at the moment is that it needs consumers borrowing and spending without limit. The only way Air travel will slow down due to market forces over the long term would be after its too late and environmental concerns force the issue (Floods, Hurricanes, general Armageddon scenarios)

I actuall belive in the power of the market to shape people's decisions. But we have to make air travel reflect its true cost That means that the American government needs to stop bailing out the airlines when they sell too many cheap tickets. We need to stop bullying our way into cheap oil. And we need to require the carbon offsets (or similar environmental mitigation) are included in the price of the ticket.

Will all this make ticket prices rise? YES. Will ticket prices become unreasonably expensive? NO. But people will fly less, and when they do fly, they'll enjoy it more and do less damage to the very planet they're jet-setting off to explore.

While reducing the number of flights you take every year to a minimum is going to help on your "carbon footprint" there are a number of other things you can do in your everyday life to help reduce emissions.

1. Buy locally produced food and items (in todays world, items are often shipped around the globe a couple of times before you buy them)
2. Buy products which have been produced environmentally friendly
3. Buy products which aren't packed in several layers of plastics
4. reduce the amonth of meat you eat every week, escpecially meat from cow.
etc. etc.

Lots of ways to reduce your carbon footprint

I just visited a website www.begreennow.com that has a hydrocarbon usage calculator. Electricity use was by far the biggest contributor to my 'hydrocarbon footprint'.
A round trip to Singapore is only 3.2 metric tons while average electricty usage each year in my area is over 10 metric tons!
Before we start thinking about giving up things like air travel that have beneficial side effects as well as harmful ones I think most of us have other areas we could improve upon that would have greater impact and would be easier for us to stomach giving up. In the corporate world they call this 'low-hanging fruit' as in, let's fix the easy stuff before we tackle the really hard issues.

quote:

Before we start thinking about giving up things like air travel that have beneficial side effects as well as harmful ones I think most of us have other areas we could improve upon that would have greater impact and would be easier for us to stomach giving up.

I agree. But I think it is irresponsible to totally ignore the impact of air travel, or to think that it doesn't matter.

quote:

That means that the American government needs to stop bailing out the airlines when they sell too many cheap tickets.

But when has this happened recently? I was thoroughly disgusted that the government did NOT bail out the airlines after 9-11. To allow some of our biggest corporations to fall into bankruptcy because of a terrorist act was a great big WIN for the terrorists.(as were many of our other responses)

I fully second Ski's post.

quote:

Originally posted by sissyt:
Electricity use was by far the biggest contributor to my 'hydrocarbon footprint'.
A round trip to Singapore is only 3.2 metric tons while average electricty usage each year in my area is over 10 metric tons!

"Only"? You seem very comfortable with these large numbers. Interesting.

3.2 metric tonnes works out to about 66% of the 4.2 metric tonnes of the natural gas usage the average American uses all year according to your begreennow.com site.

quote:

...I think most of us have other areas we could improve upon that would have greater impact and would be easier for us to stomach giving up...

Like reducing electricity usage by by 1/3rd? Natural gas by 2/3rds? I'd argue that most Americans would find those incredibly painful. They'd have to do that just to get on par with Europe.

quote:

In the corporate world they call this 'low-hanging fruit' as in, let's fix the easy stuff before we tackle the really hard issues.

The cynic in me calls that "deflection", "avoidance" or maybe "ostridge with its head in the sand".

If one is going to be serious about reducing one's personal CO2 emissions, then cuts need to be made across all aspects of our lifestyles. Since flights contribute drastically more CO2 per unit of time, per unit of distance, relative to other parts of our lives (electricity, natural gas, even cars) then considering trimming your air travel is not really such a difficult concept to grasp.

Take a trip from Denver to Panama instead of Singapore and we are looking at .93 metric tonnes. Or, about 1/3 of your trip to Singapore. 'Low hanging fruit', indeed.

While air travles gives you, as an individual, a very large carbon footprint, it is imo wrong to make that the main focus (as it did in Norwegian media a few months back) because the main problem is our consumer society.

The fact that we buy more things all the time, and more often than not, things that are shiped around the globe several times before the consumer buy it, is what really matters on the large scale of things.

Reduce your air travles and buy CO2 quotas (be very carefull from whom you buy as there are so many bad projects and unserious players out there) to make your travels CO2 neutral, but if we as a western society do not do something to our everyday consumption it will not matter at all even if every flight gets grounded.

quote:

it is imo wrong to make that the main focus

I don't think anyone here is doing that. The argument can be summed up as "Does air travel a negligible impact on your CO2 emissions or not". If negligible, the we don't have to worry! If non-negligible, and one considers themselves living a green lifestyle, then you need to reconsider your air travel patterns.

While this topic has come up because of the recent UK-based protests (see OP), most will forget about it soon enough.

I do agree with you on the consumerism aspect of the problem, and can go on and on regarding that subject. But, we'd hopelessly drive this thread off topic.

quote:

be very carefull from whom you buy as there are so many bad projects and unserious players out there

I've wondered about that. It would be nice if there was a ratings service who investigated all these companies.

But then again, "an ounce of prevention is worth a metric tonne of cure"

quote:

"Only"? You seem very comfortable with these large numbers. Interesting.

Compared to 10 I still think 3 is 'only'. It is considerably less.

quote:

Since flights contribute drastically more CO2 per unit of time, per unit of distance, relative to other parts of our lives (electricity, natural gas, even cars)

Yes, per unit of distance. But for many people it is a relatively small percentage of our 'hydrocarbon portfolio'.

My point here is not to say that air travel has little or no impact, but to say that I don't think it needs to be the main focus of environmental policy. It is overshadowing more important issues, in my opinion.

For example, my neighbor told me the other day he worried his trip to Europe was making his hydrocarbon generation too large. Valid concern, but I had to wonder a little. He drives and SUV and takes a bass boat with a 250 hp motor to the lake every weekend in the summer. When the media concentrates on one issue, people's perspective can become skewed.

These examples don't even take into consideration the amount of CO2 emissions we cause with our 'consumer lifestyle' of buying over-packaged goods we don't need that were made in distant countries and shipped around the world. That, in my opinion, is easier to address than air travel which also produces good results of uniting us with distant friends and family.

Buying things has never really made me happy, but flying places has. Giving up things that do not contribute positively to your life would most definitely be low-hanging fruit.