quote:

Originally posted by sissyt:
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.

I don't think it is the main focus, it's just that on a travel forum, it's the most relevant. :-)

quote:

When the media concentrates on one issue, people's perspective can become skewed.

Oh, I agree, perspective can become skewed. However, if the media instead focused on a different major enviromental issue (as there are many), it would be equally skewed, because then it wouldn't be focusing on the other issues out there! Which one does one pick, when they all matter, and when they all pretty much interconnect??

quote:

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.

Actually I think the 'consumer lifestyle' would be equally challenging as the air travel thing, especially considering it can also go hand in hand with air travel. I mean, that's on a huge social/cultural level, with economics thrown in to boot.

quote:

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.

Oh, totally agree on giving up things that don't contribute positively. However, for many people, flying places doesn't equate to their happiness. Using your friend as an example...I'm guessing he derives a great amount of pleasure in going fishing every weekend. Thus, for him, maybe looking at his carbon footprint with flying, and reducing flights, would be more low-hanging fruit than cutting out his boat and SUV. I dunno.

I ranted in another thread a while back, but I still maintain I'd have to live like the Amish or something, in order to have little or no environmental impact whatsoever, and I also tend to think it'll go armageddon before any big impact is made.

But in the meantime, I don't think there's anything wrong w/ focusing on something like reducing flying....although yes, there are 932 other equally important environmental things we could focus on too...

quote:

Originally posted by sissyt:
Compared to 10 I still think 3 is 'only'. It is considerably less.

10 per 365 days, vs. 3 per ~3 days. As a rate, it is considerably more. An order of magnitude more.

I'm gonna stop here as I'd be repeating myself or someone else, like Eowyn218, to rebut your last thoughts. (I can hear the cheers already.)

sissyt, your post counter point non-existent arguments (like the "[paying attention to flight CO2 emissions] needs to be the main focus of environmental policy" Who exactly said that here???) and ignore what I and others have already written. Please do re-read through the thread. Take notes. There will be a quiz at noon.

quote:

I'd have to live like the Amish or something, in order to have little or no environmental impact whatsoever, and I also tend to think it'll go armageddon before any big impact is made.

Amish? I can't really groove on the god thing, but am open to other options. Wanna go halvesies on Theodore Kaczynski's forest cabin? We can rework The Unibomber Manifesto and save the world Haha. Some times I wonder why I care considering my relatively pessimistic outlook for the planet.

quote:

Originally posted by Stoo:
Amish? I can't really groove on the god thing, but am open to other options. Wanna go halvesies on Theodore Kaczynski's forest cabin? We can rework The Unibomber Manifesto and save the world Haha. Some times I wonder why I care considering my relatively pessimistic outlook for the planet.

Oh, I'm with ya on not grooving on the god thing, the Amish were just the first more subsistence-living group that came to mind. But we could totally go to that cabin and plot how to save the world.

quote:

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

Yes, but can you eliminate those 10 as easily as the three? If you tried really hard, you could probably reduce your electricity use by a third, thus saving about as much fuel as if you had not flown to Singapore, and I think that for most of us, that's a good tradeoff. If you took 2 trips of a similar distance, though...there's pretty much no way you could match that at home without having an extremely unusual lifestyle. And we're already falling into the trap of just trying to be average, and average just isn't good enough.

Like most of us here, I couldn't dream of giving up travelling, but there are responsible ways to do it. Most notably, taking fewer, longer trips and using public transport on the ground when possible.

I also just put my own useage into the calculator linked above, and I must say that comparing to averages is really disingenuous. Roughly 1/2 of my emissions - about 4 tonnes - (at least the ones it calculates, which ignores my contribution to bus emissions, the impact of all the fresh produce I buy in the middle of winter, etc.), came from flying.

On a side note, did anyone else find it odd that all inputs are in imperial units (miles, therms, etc), but in the end it calculated metric tonnes?

quote:

Originally posted by 2wanderers:
I also just put my own useage into the calculator linked above, and I must say that comparing to averages is really disingenuous.

I chalked it up as being "child friendly". If it was some monster spreadsheet that required a Quicken-like attention to detail, nobody would bother

I take a train every day. But was the electricity from hydro, nuclear, gas or coal?

Something is better than nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by Stoo:

quote:

Originally posted by 2wanderers:
I also just put my own useage into the calculator linked above, and I must say that comparing to averages is really disingenuous.

I chalked it as being "child friendly". If it was some monster spreadsheet that required a Quicken-like attention to detail, nobody would bother

I take a train every day. But was the electricity from hydro, nuclear, gas or coal?

Something is better than nothing.

If it were a monster spreadsheet then I would love to use it, being an accountant and all.


About this group, these people aren't the brightest tools in the shed. If they are protesting the over abundance over short range holiday flights then why are they protesting at Heathrow? Shouldn't they be protesting at Luton or Stanstead instead? You know, since those airports are where most of these small short cheap flights originate?

The third runway at Heathrow isn't going to increase the number of flights in and out of Heathrow in a given hour. The whole purpose of this runway is to ease the congestion. Which would help the environment over what is currently happening. Less aircraft in holding patterns in the air and less aircraft on the ground waiting to take off, both of which are consuming fuel and emitting exhaust while in the process.

quote:

Originally posted by Llalewyn:
...Shouldn't they be protesting at Luton or Stanstead instead? You know, since those airports are where most of these small short cheap flights originate?

Don't the teach marketing in accounting school?

quote:

...The whole purpose of this runway is to ease the congestion...

Sounds a lot like adding another lane to the 405...build it and they will come.

quote:

Originally posted by Stoo:

quote:

Originally posted by Llalewyn:
...Shouldn't they be protesting at Luton or Stanstead instead? You know, since those airports are where most of these small short cheap flights originate?

Don't the teach marketing in accounting school?

quote:

...The whole purpose of this runway is to ease the congestion...

Sounds a lot like adding another lane to the 405...build it and they will come.

Yes, but you don't need permission to drive on the 405. Heathrow is a slot restricted airport. Only X number of flights can or take off in a given hour. As of a few months ago the City of London has said it won't increase the number of slots into and out of the airport. Of course it is a government so that can and probably will change.

I'm an accountant. I'm better than those artsy Marketing types.

quote:

[sissyt, your post counter point non-existent arguments (like the "[paying attention to flight CO2 emissions] needs to be the main focus of environmental policy" Who exactly said that here???) and ignore what I and others have already written. Please do re-read through the thread. Take notes. There will be a quiz at noon.

Ok, saying 'main focus' is poor wording on my part, that was already addressed in a previous post, it just feels like the main focus when it's in the news. But we have been talking about policy.

Anyway, I like 2wanderers take on things

quote:

Like most of us here, I couldn't dream of giving up travelling, but there are responsible ways to do it. Most notably, taking fewer, longer trips and using public transport on the ground when possible.

That carbon calculator was a bit lame, it was just the one I knew of.

Gotta go catch my train, which produces emissions but less than if I drove every day.

quote:

If it were a monster spreadsheet then I would love to use it, being an accountant and all.

Alright LLaweyn. Here you go. Toss these into a spreadsheet or I can email you mine if you like. And before Stoo starts whinging about sources and Neil complains that there still isn't enough deviation among all the possibilities, it's enough of a snapshot for me.

For power:

Electricity 0.95 lb CO2 / kwh
Gas 0.42 lb CO2 / kwh
Gas 12.10 lb CO2 / therms
Gas 3.32 lb CO2 / liters
oil 22.40 lb CO2 / gal oil
coal 2.41 lb CO2 / lb coal
wood 1.04 lb CO2 / lb wood

For transport:

gasoline 19.56 lbs CO2 / gal
diesel 22.38 lbs CO2 / gal

For flights (this is just CO2, including entrails, etc probably want to actually double the number for equivalent Greenhouse effect:

short 0.64 lbs CO2 / passenger mile
medium 0.44 lbs CO2 / passenger mile
long 0.4 lbs CO2 / passenger mile

Train travel:

intercity train 0.42 lbs CO2 / passenger mile
transit/commuter train 0.35 lbs CO2 / passenger mile

Diet:

vegan 4000 lbs CO2 / year
vegetarian 5400 lbs CO2 / year
mostly vegetarian 6000 lbs CO2 / year
omnivorous 7600 lbs CO2 / year

Respiration/Excretion/Methane production (ok, these are my own calcs and I make no claim to their accuracy as data is limited):

human 1100 lbs CO2 / year
cow 11,800 lbs CO2 (equivalence) / year

_________

Now, it should be pretty obvious by these numbers that for every cow I whack I get a carbon free trip to Singapore every year

And on a relevance basis, for those looking above and going WTF, all of these (on average) produce 1 lb of CO2

air miles (per passenger) 1.1
car miles (@ 25 mpg per vehicle) 1.3
train miles (per passenger) 2.9
electricity (kWh) 1.1
gas (kWh) 2.4
hours as a omnivore 1.2
hours as a mostly vegetarian 1.5
hours as a vegetarian 1.6
hours as a vegan 2.2
hours you're breathing 7.8

quote:

Now, it should be pretty obvious by these numbers that for every cow I whack I get a carbon free trip to Singapore every year

Clearly, this benefit to humanity was neglected when they decided that omnivores are killing the planet.

Anyways...since I've been designated as "official nitpicker" let me get to work.

I'm actually not going into too much of it, since this definitely does cover most of the sources of carbon. I'm curious of where you got your numbers, since I must confess ignorance on most of it.

The one thing I did want to bring into it was the electricity, since it turns out this is the only one I've actually researched in detail. It varies a lot depending on where you live, but the average kWh generated in my province creates 0.985 kg (2.17lbs), more than double your number. A quick glance at google seems to put the US nationwide average at 1.35lbs/kWh.

Alright, nitpicking done. Sometimes I think I might be happy as an accountant.

quote:

Originally posted by halfnine:
And before Stoo starts whinging about sources...

...

For flights (this is just CO2, including entrails, etc probably want to actually double the number for equivalent Greenhouse effect:

short 0.64 lbs CO2 / passenger mile
medium 0.44 lbs CO2 / passenger mile
long 0.4 lbs CO2 / passenger mile

Train travel:

intercity train 0.42 lbs CO2 / passenger mile
transit/commuter train 0.35 lbs CO2 / passenger mile
...

And on a relevance basis, for those looking above and going WTF, all of these (on average) produce 1 lb of CO2

air miles (per passenger) 1.1
car miles (@ 25 mpg per vehicle) 1.3
train miles (per passenger) 2.9

...

whing, whing, whing!

The first part, as I read it, says train vs. air is with short haul air (worst case for air travel) being a multiple of ~1.8x compared to commuter train commuter train--and loosely 1:1 for (best case) long haul air. But in the second part, it seems that air emits 2.6x as much C02.

EDIT: My own quick google turns up a car/train/plane ratio of 36/10/29, which is closer to your second section. NEF.org.uk

Yes, sources would be nice.

Joke inspired by this post: What is half of nine? An irrational number! Whahahahhaha....

Edit again. For trips here in Europe, seat61.com has a nice little table (with source links):

 

Journey:                   Out & back by plane...  Out & back by train...

London-Paris by Eurostar   3.5 hours, 244 Kg/CO2   2.75 hours,                      22 Kg/CO2

London-Edinburgh           3.5 hours, 193 Kg/CO2   4.5 hours,                       24 Kg/CO2

London-Nice                4 hours,   250 Kg/CO2   8 hours by Eurostar+TGV,         36 Kg/CO2

London-Barcelona           4.5 hours, 277 Kg/CO2   Eurostar then overnight sleeper, 40 Kg/CO2

London-Tangier             5 hours,   435 Kg/CO2   48 hrs by Eurostart, sleeper 

                                                   trains & ferry,                  63 Kg/CO2

According to the calculator, I make something like 20 tons of that stuff per year. And I'm working really hard to get it up to 30, by idling my car even when i'm asleep, by taking a plane to work, and by leaving my lights on constantly. Actually that last one helps for other reasons that I won't go into. I'm just sick and tired of Mother Nature never working out for me, always being foggy or windy when I don't want it to be. So I'm going to take her out, even if it kills me.

Man, people don't want to believe my numbers but they'll trust some POS online calculator (without any sources mind you)

quote:

The first part, as I read it, says train vs. air is with short haul air (worst case for air travel) being a multiple of ~1.8x compared to commuter train commuter train--and loosely 1:1 for (best case) long haul air. But in the second part, it seems that air emits 2.6x as much C02.

I think the difference we're talking about here is in the first set I've indicated this is for pure CO2 emissions and not taking into account any jet entrails, etc. If you apply a radiative forcing index to account for this (crudely multiplying by 2 and even this is debatable) you'd get an "equivalent" level of CO2 as far as the effects of global warming are concerned. Similar to the idea that 1 lb of methane would have the CO2 equivalence of 25 lbs when referenced to its effects on Global warming. Now when you look at the second set of numbers I've taken this into consideration and based it on a medium length flight. And the second set of numbers are rounded to the nearest 0.1 so there may be a little offset there as well.

quote:

Yes, sources would be nice.

As far as sources go I haven't maintained them. There was never a need. When I first started doing this it was just an exercise of mine to get a handle on where the true CO2 culprits were as I found the online calculators insufficient to address all my questions. Anyway, I've perused various sources but once I found numbers and sources that appeared reasonable and within a reasonable deviation from other sources I tossed them into my own calculator. The exception to this is the cow and human respiration rates of which I only found one study and it wasn't addressed towards global warming. As such, I had to take the data and do some calculations of my own. So, I'd seriously take that data with a grain of salt, although I'd like to see more studies on that.

Anyway, I did most of these calculations just to draw some comparisons for myself anyway. Such as:

- living 3 miles away from work and driving a car is probably better than living 10 miles away and taking the train
- you can either drive a Hummer around (instead of an average small car) or take a 15,000 mile intercontinental flight each year
- living out in the boonies and completely self-sustained off the grid is beneficial as long as it doesn't add more than 30 miles (one way) to your commute

Anyway, if you think you have better sources or better numbers, your free to provide them.