Just 1% of people are responsible for half of all toxic emissions from flying.
You must log in or register to comment.
Everyone in these comments so far is misrepresenting the information here and arguing off of an incorrect assumption.
This is NOT saying that the 1% wealthiest people are responsible for half of these emissions. This is saying that 1% of travellers are responsible for half these emissions because those travelers travel so frequently. It has nothing to do with their wealth or using private jets. It’s about how much they’re flying.
Source: From the study linked in the petition: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378020307779
“1% of world population emits 50% of CO2 from commercial aviation.” Not private jets. Commercial aviation.
“Data also supports that a minor share of air travelers is responsible for a large share of warming: The percentile of the most frequent fliers – at most 1% of the world population - likely accounts for more than half of the total emissions from passenger air travel.”
“Everyone in these comments doesn’t understand”
You’ve been arguing against me that commercial flights aren’t an issue because I’ve pointed out the same fucking thing 7h before you!
I never said that. I said that they’re not as big of an issue as cars. You’re lying. If you’re going to focus your efforts, as I’ve stated now multiple times, it would be more impactful to tell people to drive less, not more. Airline travel is more efficient than driving.
When used for passengers and for the same purpose, no they’re not. They only are if they’re used for the same distance and the car has one passenger and the plane is full, but I’m sure even you realise how disingenuous that comparison is.
Again, not true. The statements are based on current averages of 80% occupancy in a plane and 1.3 passengers per trip. That means that, on average, most planes are close to full occupancy while most car rides are 1 passenger rides. It’s not disingenuous at all.
If you’re only going to focus on the small percent of car rides with 3+ people, then you’re already moving the goalposts from the initial claims.
I’m focusing on travels for the same fucking purpose because my point from the beginning has been that we would be better off if people used their car to go on vacation instead because they would use less gas because they wouldn’t go as far AND because cars are more efficient when there’s more than one passenger in them, you keep using numbers that don’t make sense because you compare average occupancy for long distance travel by plane to occupancy for mixed distance travel by car.
No fucking shit most of the times car travel there’s only one person inside, most of the times they don’t travel long distances for vacations! When they do their occupancy tends to be higher because the majority of people don’t go on long distance vacation alone!
Ban air travel is fucking stupid
Banning it for non essential needs isn’t when we’re facing a climate crisis that will displace millions (if not billions in the long run).
Yes, as I said, you’re moving the goal posts! The initial point that was being discussed was whether or not planes have higher emissions that cars because planes are less efficient than cars and that’s not true. You’re arguing a hypothetical that puts the car in an ideal situation while simultaneously putting planes in the worst situation. You suggested banning the majority of commercial flights when that won’t even make as big of an impact. Why not ban the majority of cars since they have a far greater cumulative impact than planes? If we’re going for completely unreasonable suggestions that only affect single-digit percentages of the problem, why not ban boats too?
my point from the beginning has been that we would be better off if people used their car to go on vacation instead because they would use less gas because they wouldn’t go as far
And my point was that this is an unreasonable ask since it would limit where people can travel while not actually moving the needle in any substantive, meaningful way.
deleted by creator
That’s probably the stupidest statement I’ve read today
Well then, I’m sorry that you have to live life as an idiot. That must be tough.
——
“A new report from the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute shows that flying has become 74% more efficient per passenger since 1970 while driving gained only 17% efficiency per passenger. In fact, the average plane trip has been more fuel efficient than the average car trip since as far back as 2000, according to their calculations.”
http://websites.umich.edu/~umtriswt/PDF/UMTRI-2014-2_Abstract_English.pdf
“The main findings are that to make driving less energy intensive than flying, the fuel economy of the entire fleet of light-duty vehicles would have to improve from the current 21.5 mpg to at least 33.8 mpg, or vehicle load would have to increase from the current 1.38 persons to at least 2.3 persons.”
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/09/evolving-climate-math-of-flying-vs-driving/
You could also just tax those things at rates the super-rich will actually feel in their bank accounts.
Progressive tax based on income, jet type and frequency.
Or just a rate sufficient to remove and sequester 2x the amount.
Or require them to use 100% sustainable fuel to accelerate the development of such fuels.
Carbon sequestration is not possible right now or even for the foreseeable future.
Forcing jets to use renewable resources is a good one be should aim to ban private short and medium haul flights in general.
Are trees not sufficient for carbon sequestration?
In order to actually sequester carbon from trees you then need to cut them down and use or burry the lumber in a place where it will rest for the rest of time. Besides we would need vastly more space, water, and firefighting to even approach real offsets. Trees are nice for shade and some ecosystems but they don’t really have anything to do with climate change beyond burning up faster.
Think of the carbon life cycle.
There’s hydrocarbons underground that have been there for millions of years. Used to be in the air, but now it’s not.
Now it’s burned as jet fuel (releasing that cow back into the air)
If trees pull that co2 info their wood, what happens to that wood in 10,000 years? It’s going to be in the atmosphere again (bacteria and fungi break down dead wood)
So the only way to do it, using trees, would be to burry them after maturation and make sure they don’t rot. And you’d need to do this to capture the gigs tonnes of co2 that is released (that’s a lot of trees…and a lot of digging…)
Not possible? It’s happening in various places already
Can you provide examples?
I have seen big contraptions that promise it but aren’t actually doing it.
If it were up to me we’d blanket ban anything that only the ultra rich can afford and force them to put the funds into improving public services. If they want private flights, great, but they also have to offer them at an affordable price to the average person. Basically, “if you didn’t bring enough for the whole class, you can’t eat it,” but for rich people.
You’ve got it exactly backwards. The problem isn’t that the rich buy too much. The problem is that they don’t buy enough. They lend and invest and leverage and otherwise use their money to create debts owed to them.
The cars they buy each pay autoworker wages. The shares they buy in that car company creates an obligation on the company to pay them dividends.
We should be doing everything we can to increase their costs and decrease returns on excessive investments, while removing impediments on them buying services and manufactured products.
So encourage them to fly more?
Economically, yes. Ecologically, no.
If they want private flights, great, but they also have to offer them at an affordable price to the average person.
Individual motorized transport for the masses, but in the skies? This would ultimately doom our ecosphere. Let’s instead have less flights, less individual transport and more mass transit.
I think I generally agree to your idea but want to include future generations; sustainability. It’s not enough to allow all currently living people a certain lifestyle. What good is it if the result is a scorched Earth a few decades later?
Or maybe you didn’t mean it that way. Sorry then, still wanted to make that point.
Skewed analysis is skewed.
From their own source, 4% of the fuel consumption comes from private flights, so the 1% of people are mostly taking commercial flights (70% of gas consumption), the petition should be to ban private and the majority of passenger commercial flights.
Did you know that four passengers in a Suburban pollute less for the same amount of miles traveled than if they were going to their destination by plane? Don’t see many people thinking about that when taking the plane to visit the world, not even those who are eco anxious.
Although nothing you’ve said is inaccurate or incorrect, I feel like you’re leaving out a big part of the equation - time. A Suburban can’t travel the same number of miles anywhere near as fast as a plane or jet and that, in most cases, is the number one reason someone chooses a flight over a drive, even if it uses less fuel and is more eco-friendly.
I totally agree with you but there’s a question that should be asked when it comes to going on vacation all over the place (and from what I understand it’s more common in the USA/English Canada to move very far for school and to take the plane multiple times a year to go see one’s family)… It’s simply unsustainable but people keep pointing at the rich with their private jet but when looking at the big picture, it’s tourists that allow commercial flights companies to continuously increase the number of flights they offer…
It’s really not, though. Commercial aviation and transport (including private jets, commercial flights, and shipping/import) combined make up only 5.3% of the total CO2 in use. While commercial flights make up 70% of that slice, they also have an exponential effect vs. the alternative. Even if there are more flights, unless they are less than half-full, using commercial airlines is more sustainable and also safer than the other alternatives because the effect is multiplicative.
Imagine everyone was taking private jets. If you forced everyone to fly in pairs, you would literally halve the amount of CO2. Force them to fly in 4’s, and it’s a further halving of that first half (equal to 1/4 the amount of CO2 now). Extend that further and further until you have a flight with 647 passengers (the “average” amount for commercial flight globally) and look how much CO2 you’ve prevented from entering the atmosphere. Even if someone is touring 6 or more times per year, as long as they’re flying a commercial flight, it’s better for CO2 production than a car or individual transport.
It’s far more effective to direct efforts to something outside of that 5% (or especially a subsection of that 5%) like manufacturing or industrial CO2 pollution.
You don’t understand what I’m saying.
People shouldn’t be flying so dang much, it’s that simple. It’s not normal to expect to take one week off work and to be able to spend it guilt free on the other side of the world. I’m talking about eliminating commercial flights not to replace them with private jets, but to replace them with local vacations and with the expectation that if you decide to move across the continent you won’t be seeing your family four times a year but once every four years.
Our incredible mobility is an unsustainable anomaly in human’s history.
Why?
You can’t just make a claim like “people shouldn’t fly as much” without a reason why or claims like “mobility is an unsustainable” without any kind of evidence. Our mobility is 100% sustainable. Not only that, it’s sustainable in its current form.
What? What you’re saying doesn’t make sense, your previous message you were saying so yourself, 5.3% of all CO2 emissions, 70% of that coming from commercial passenger flights!
It’s. Not. Sustainable.
I think you’re not understanding the numbers. 70% of 5.3% of total emissions is 3.7% of total global emissions. In other words, if you eliminated all commercial flights, you’d only remove 3.7% of the total emissions being produced in the world. There are more impactful changes that can be made that do not have the impact of “no one can ever fly anywhere and you won’t see your family for years”.
It is sustainable.
🙄
Our mobility is 100% sustainable. Not only that, it’s sustainable in its current form.
Oh the ice sheets on your planet are fine huh?
JFC
Oh is the current state of the ice sheets because of the 3% of CO2 from airlines? Or maybe there are bigger contributors to what’s going on there that we can tackle first?
Idiot.
Commercial aviation and transport (including private jets, commercial flights, and shipping/import) combined make up only 5.3% of the total CO2 in use.
That’s between the total CO2 emissions of Russia and India, ranked 3rd and 4th worldwide (only China and the USA have higher emissions, and those two lead by huge margins). By that logic, all countries in the world besides China and the USA could stop reducing emissions because they only cause sub 10% shares of the total.
You just can’t argue that way. 5% are a big, signifikant amount. There isn’t a whole lot “outside that 5%”. Ultimately, all of it has to become 0 anyway.
By that logic, all countries in the world besides China and the USA could stop reducing emissions because they only cause sub 10% shares of the total.
No, because China and the USA are both affected by the emissions regardless of which one of them are responsible for them. In that case, the one we’re actually faced with, it makes more sense to tackle the emissions that are highest first and that have the lowest barriers. You pick the problems with the largest return on investment in time and resources. Airplanes are not that. Banning commercial flights for people is a fantasy and banning private jets, although something I agree with for other reasons, is not enough to make a dent.
There isn’t a whole lot “outside that 5%”.
Yes, there is. Cars, on average, have not lowered their emissions at anywhere near the same rate as airplanes have over the last 20 years and that’s including new electric cars. Until electric cars overtake gas-powered vehicles, which is currently projected to happen in 2031, there is enough within this sector alone that is more than 5% of the problem and that doesn’t require an absolute fantasy for a solution. And that doesn’t even touch manufacturing and industrial emissions which account for an even bigger slice because of the energy they use.
You’re right… it all has to become 0 anyways but we don’t have unlimited time or unlimited resources. Efforts need to be prioritized to put the ways that are realistic and meaningful at the top and unrealistic ways that solve 5% of the problem at the bottom.
Fossil fueled cars aren’t going to get that much more efficient in the foreseeable future, especially since manufacturers know they are a dead horse.
So what do you propose for that sector? Banning driving? And that’s then easier than banning private flying, despite far more people relying on it every day, it being far more decentralized and far harder to regulate for that reason? Globally, at that? I mean of course we should improve public transit to make it a better alternative, but that’s an equally monumental task that will take decades in most places.
Air travel is definitely a lower hanging fruit as for the majority of people it’s a luxury, not a necessity.
You do know that electric cars exist, right? Replacing gas powered cars, trucks, and semis would have a far more significant impact with less inconvenience and change required than it would to ban commercial air travel even partially. You say it’s a luxury but companies, families, and governments rely on it.
Commercial aviation and transport (including private jets, commercial flights, and shipping/import) combined make up only 5.3% of the total CO2 in use.
That may very well be but there are parts of that that are significantly more useful than others. Travelling from A to B only to travel back a few days later is probably among the most inefficient of those. That covers things like family visits, tourism, business meetings and many other human round-trips. There are probably a few exceptions, such as specialist workers coming to the device they repair if that device is even harder to move but overall most travel for short periods of time is very wasteful.
That’s not accurate, though. The number one usage of cars globally is commuting to and from work and that averages 1.2 passengers per vehicle. If you look at total car and light-duty usage across any kind of trip, it’s 1.3 passengers per vehicle. Usefulness has nothing to do with it and tourism contributes far more than it takes. All forms of travel are wasteful. Aviation is just less wasteful than other means of travel no matter how you slice it.
You’re comparing the environmental impact of a trip taken by plane vs. the same trip taken by car. I don’t think that is a reasonable comparison.
The presence of the aviation industry makes it feasible for a New York family to take a vacation in California or Hawaii. Without aviation, that same family is unlikely to choose the long-distance trip, and would likely decide to visit Pennsylvania, Virginia, Vermont, New Hampshire, North Carolina, or some other nearby destination instead, driving 280-500 miles instead of flying 2800-5000 miles.
No. The parent made that comparison when they said it’s more sustainable to drive a Suburban with 4 people than it is for them to fly. That is just flat out untrue no matter how you look at it for all but the shortest of trips where it’s not even practical to take a flight.
I think you need to read the parent comment again. They are are specifically arguing that people shouldn’t regularly be taking such long trips. They specifically argued against the common practice of “USA / English Canada” students taking multiple long-distance flights a year.
I think you need to reread the (now) grandparent comment again:
Did you know that four passengers in a Suburban pollute less for the same amount of miles traveled than if they were going to their destination by plane?
They’re arguing that people should be required to isolate from their families if they live far enough away. That’s nonsense.
They specifically argued against the common practice of “USA / English Canada” students taking multiple long-distance flights a year.
Yes, and I’m arguing that that’s nonsensical considering that all CO2 emissions from all form of commercial aviation travel are less than 3% of the global total.
5.3%
that’s 5.3% of the carbon emissions that don’t actually contribute to the economy in a useful way. We will have to continue burning carbon to transport food and goods; transporting rich assholes to davos? fuck’em. if they want to go that bad get on commercial (GODS FORBID FIRST CLASS) or hop on the fucking yachts they all love.
5.3% is commercial airlines. 5.3% includes all air travel including commercial and commercial makes up 70% of that 5%. If you’re going to argue against something, get it straight what you’re actually arguing about.
Also, you’re insane if you think that commercial aviation and transport don’t contribute to the economy. How do you think your cell phone that you’re using to type this nonsense got to you?
How do you think your cell phone that you’re using to type this nonsense got to you?
Very probably on a boat.
Do you live in China? If not, it may have gotten to you by a combination of means definitely involving an airplane. Even if it didn’t make it to you directly, it likely travelled to several different places before it even got in your hands and the likelihood of an airplane being part of that is extremely high.
transporting rich assholes to davos? fuck’em. if they want to go that bad get on commercial (GODS FORBID FIRST CLASS) or hop on the fucking yachts they all love.
since you obviously didn’t read it the first time.
What are you talking about? The article isn’t talking about the 1% richest. It’s talking about the top 1% of commercial travelers.
I stopped flying cross country a year ago. Not looking back. Thanks wife.
Funny how fake news don’t ever advocate this position, can’t do that, it would hurt better people. but eating bugs, turning down AC… “we are all in this together plebs”
How about you get your ass in the car and drive to work peasants, it’s good for the climate!
I’m not a European citizen, can I still sign this?
Private jet service for rich dog owners condemned by climate campaigners
Environmentalists have condemned a “ludicrous” private jet service that transports wealthy people’s dogs, which this week ran its first flight from Dubai to London.
For £8,166, one way, customers were able to sit with their dogs on their laps and sip champagne as they travelled from Al Maktoum international airport to Farnborough in a Gulfstream IV-SP jet.
The company, K9 Jets, which is run by a husband-and-wife couple from Birmingham, already operates services to New Jersey, Los Angeles, Frankfurt, Paris and Lisbon.
It is really nice to fly privately, though I understand why proplr don’t like them.
As someone who has taken a private flight provided through work, and rode on a fancy sleeper cabin on a train, trains are 1000x more enjoyable. It’s honestly really saddening we’ve let our rail system get this bad compared to other countries.
Difference: when 6ou fly a private jet, you can leave anytime you want to.
Rail is excellent for freight transport. There is no cheaper way to move a hell of a lot of heavy or bulky stuff across a continent, especially if what you’re transporting is not particularly time sensitive and can wait for you to acquire full loads before setting off.
Rail is absolutely terrible for passenger transport. All the advantages of freight rail are lost once you switch to passenger service.
The only place passenger rail works is in the densest of urban environments.
The worst possible case is allowing a passenger train - serving a couple hundred people - to take priority over and interfere with a freight train that serves tens of thousands of people.
Yeah I have no idea where this idea came from because it simply isn’t true in other countries if you are from the US.
Sure, modern rail starts falling short when you start doing long distances like from New York to Los Angeles.
However, for medium long distances, this is absolutely false.
Distance wise, a trip from Beijing to Shanghai is comparable to Chicago to New York or about 100 miles short compared to Dallas to Chicago.
Sure, a flight does that same distance in 2hrs 18minuties on average.
But compare that to the train cost only being $30 and showing up every 30 minutes as opposed to 4 times that amount for a plane ticket. If you miss that plane as well, then you’re SOL so you better show up to the airport two hours early according to the FAA!
No, I’m not some user from hex bear simping over China either. The sleeper car I was referring to was from Paris to Venice. Was like $70 for two. Departed at night, went to sleep, and woke up in the morning to keep enjoying my vacation. Sure, not as fast as the Chinese train, but this European train is also dated compared to that bullet train, plus there are way more mountains to traverse in this route. And it was absolutely lovely as opposed to playing $500 per ticket for a flight to the same destination.
A proper bullet train setup in the US, especially through the Midwest, not only would make travel cheaper, but you’d make rural towns more attractive to live in if a 2 -> 4 hour drive to the closest big city turns into a 30 minute train trip.
