Jet Smart

Ask Umbra on flying less 17

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

Do we really need to fly less or do we need planes that are more fuel efficient? Am I assuming correctly when I say that planes have little or no emissions standards? I didn’t see that mentioned specifically in your previous article on planes and trains. So the real answer would be, fly less for now until planes become more fuel efficient and green.

Justin B.
East Tawas, Mich.

A. Dearest Justin,

plane interiorDon’t fly—the friendly skies will thank you.Robert Scoble via flickrYes, fly less for now until planes become more fuel efficient and green. Don’t count your frequent flier miles before they accrue, though, because it is extremely unlikely that airlines will reach the needed amount of “more” efficient in your lifetime.

If you did indeed read back on my extremely erudite plane travel musings, you noticed that planes not only burn a lot of fuel, they burn it in a layer of the atmosphere that lends the fuel more power to change the climate. The greenhouse-gas emissions of an airplane are hence given a “radiative forcing” multiplier, to reflect this extra power.

There are varying accounts of aviation’s contribution to overall climate emissions, ranging from 4 to 9 percent. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that aviation contributes 12 percent of transport-related CO2 emissions. If you have ever calculated your own carbon footprint, you’ll have an idea of the lopsided effect just one or two flights can have on an otherwise typical individual impact.

The aviation industry justifiably fears any mandated carbon reduction, such as the cap and trade system outlined in the American Clean Energy and Security Act. They complain that the system will lead to higher fuel prices, which means they will have no money to make all the efficiency improvements they really, really want to make. Which may be true, to a point; some airlines have been changing routes, experimenting with fuels and landing methods, even developing new aircraft.

But this is also true: If the government does somehow establish a functioning cap and trade program that brings our emissions down 83 percent in the next 40 years, flying life as we currently know it will have ended. The days of cheap fuel will be, and should be, over. Flying will become cost-prohibitive. Flitting about on quick vacations and seeing far-flung family and friends will be even more the privilege of the financially endowed. This is already coming to pass in Europe (and for airlines that fly in and out of Europe), where they are ahead of us on cap and trade and airline emissions will be regulated.

Aviation is a powerful industry, though—and is just one of the powerful groups looking for changes as ACES heads to the Senate. So as I said, try not to fly much—and don’t hold your breath for the day when flying will be climatologically neutral.

Runwayly,
Umbra

 

Yours is to wonder why, hers is to answer (or try). Send your green-living questions to Umbra.

For even more green goodness, you can follow Umbra on Twitter (@AskUmbra).

Umbra Fisk is Grist Research Associate II, Hardcover and Periodicals Unit, floors 2B-4B.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. veritone Posted 5:41 am
    17 Aug 2009

    Between Peak Oil and the Climate Crisis I believe we will see the end of commercial aviation in our lifetime. And I, for one, will welcome it.

    Permalink

    1. Daniel Saltman's avatar

      Daniel Saltman Posted 12:03 pm
      18 Aug 2009

      But how will people get from country to country?

      Permalink

  2. sindark's avatar

    sindark Posted 6:40 am
    17 Aug 2009

    Umbra,It's good to see someone not shying away from saying that we all need to be flying a lot less, and that marginally more efficient planes and carbon offsets are not sufficient to make the industry sustainable or moral.Cheap and frequent flights are probably the biggest sacrifice the world's middle classes will need to make, for the sake of avoiding catastrophic climate change.

    Permalink

  3. Samantic Posted 7:29 am
    17 Aug 2009

    Blimps.Add that to the list of technologies that we could and ought to be investing in now, while we still have the resources for fleet construction available.  And to the list of technologies we will have missed out on by the time we realize we need them.
    They won't give you quick business flights.  But they can transport people over long distances (at relatively low speeds) for cultural exchange or visiting farflung family.  And they can also transport some goods.

    Permalink

  4. askantik's avatar

    askantik Posted 8:10 am
    17 Aug 2009

    Ok, all this talk about flying less is good... but point me to a place that offers a ship that will take members of the public to Europe or Asia.  Or point me to a committee that's planning a Trans-Atlantic (or Trans-Pacific) roadway.  Not only because of family and friends abroad, but because the world is a nice place that I'd like to see. 
    Some alternatives would be nice.

    Permalink

  5. sindark's avatar

    sindark Posted 9:37 am
    17 Aug 2009

    Ships are actually even worse, at least if they look anything like current cruise or cargo ships:http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c20/page_133.shtml“For a time, I thought that the way to solve the long-distance-transport problem was to revert to the way it was done before planes: ocean liners. Then I looked at the numbers. The sad truth is that ocean liners use more energy per passenger-km than jumbo jets. The QE2 uses four times as much energy per passenger-km as a jumbo. OK, it’s a luxury vessel; can we do better with slower tourist-class liners? From 1952 to 1968, the economical way to cross the Atlantic was in two Dutch-built liners known as “The Economy Twins,” the Maasdam and the Rijnsdam. These travelled at 16.5 knots (30.5 km/h), so the crossing from Britain to New York took eight days. Their energy consumption, if they carried a full load of 893 passengers, was 103 kWh per 100 p-km. At a typical 85% occupancy, the energy consumption was 121 kWh per 100 pkm – more than twice that of the jumbo jet. To be fair to the boats, they are not only providing trans- portation: they also provide the passengers and crew with hot air, hot water, light, and entertainment for several days; but the energy saved back home from being cooped up on the boat is dwarfed by the boat’s energy consumption, which, in the case of the QE2, is about 3000 kWh per day per passenger.”

    Permalink

  6. Ken Johnson's avatar

    Ken Johnson Posted 12:42 pm
    17 Aug 2009

    Aviation could become carbon-neutral (or even carbon-negative) with biofuels. It would probably be infeasible to produce biofuel in sufficient quantities to sustain the world's 13,000 commercial planes, but the high demand for air transport could be leveraged to jump-start biofuel industries.A high carbon price is not required to support biofuels. In fact, a very small per-ton carbon fee could give biofuel a comparatively huge per-ton price advantage if the fee revenue is used to subsidize biofuels (and is not used for other purposes such as "tax shifting" or consumer dividends). A simple fee/subsidy system could create incentives for biofuel commercialization far beyond anything comtemplated by ACES or alternative tax-and-dividend proposals. A similar approach could be used to stimulate commercialization of air-transport substitutes such as high-speed rail and teleconferencing. 

    Permalink

  7. omarsidd Posted 3:11 pm
    17 Aug 2009

    Oh Umbra, you are all adorable and crunchy, but you're completely wrong in your Europe comments.  In most cases, it's cheaper to fly from European city to city than it is to drive, and it's actually notably less costly than in the US, in many cases.  Here are a couple of the profitable short-haul airlines you should have googled: Easyjet, Ryanair . Trains are also faster and cheaper than driving there, but actually not as cheap as those airlines and often slower.And really, for those of us not inclined to spend the rest of our lives living in quaint pre-industrial communes, the idea of "too bad air travel is going away" sounds like an amazing lack of vision.  Really, you can't imagine 40 years making a difference?  (hint: look back 40 years for contrast)  Microjets and solar-powered ultralights (and super-large aircraft) may disagree with your assessment, even just based on today's tech.The  enviro movement's history has shown us that "too bad they'll go out of business" is a bad idea and usually a non-starter.   Incremental pragmatism (with some headlining lead by example) usually works best, it turns out.

    Permalink

    1. veritone Posted 4:23 am
      18 Aug 2009

      Easyjet and Ryannair, like all airlines, have been successful at externalizing the true cost of their emissions, i.e., they pay nothing for all the pollution they incur. Like so many other "energy markets" they are an example of market failure. To point to their price as proof of their efficiency is a failure of intellect common among cargoists like yourself. Your confidence that technology and markets will always save us is misplaced, regardless or your condescending arrogance. You clearly are also ignorant of the enormous role Peak Oil will play in the demise of air travel. It is equally clear you are poorly informed about the likely impact of Global Warming.

      Permalink

      1. omarsidd Posted 6:06 am
        18 Aug 2009

        Hey, it's always handy to read the actual article. Specifically this line I replied to: "This is already coming to pass in Europe". The present-tense is what I'm addressing.  If you knew anything about European aviation, you know it's a level playing ground (regulation-wise) inside EU.  So what applies to one airline there...   Eg, "it is not already coming to pass".Oh well, no point in arguing with intellectual lightwights who can't even be bothered to read the original article before they tirade off-topic.  Please don't bother to reply until you actually read the article.

        Permalink

  8. witmol's avatar

    witmol Posted 6:24 am
    18 Aug 2009

    I agree with Askantik, I think we need to talk about viable alternatives. If I give up flying, I can pretty much forget travel altogether.Coming from Australia, it takes three days to cross from Sydney to Perth by train, and if you don't want to sleep in the seat, it costs about $2700 return. Compare this with my recent jaunt to Japan which took 10 hours each way by plane and cost about $2700 for airfare, my accommodation AND a two-week pass on the Shinkansen and I can see where two weeks and $2700 is better spent, lovely as the Nullarbor is (though I am planning this trip...).I have changed my lifestyle quite a bit in the last decade to accommodate the environment, but I'm going to start thinking life's not worth living if I can't travel overseas once every four years.

    Permalink

  9. dankd Posted 8:57 am
    18 Aug 2009

    I agree with Ken. If we have enough energy of any kind to run a world economy with a moderate rate of growth, and if we can do this while constraining carbon emissions from the rest of the economy, then coming up with low-carbon aviation fuel is not going to be a huge problem. Algal production of fuel seems to be moving ahead reasonably well. Even if aviation fuel cost 3x it's present cost, my sense is that would only add about 50% to the price of a plane ticket. Making a carbon neutral economy is going to require a lot of good new technology in a lot of fields, I don't think aviation is worse than others. It's just that energy is going to get more expensive, and energy costs of aviation are a bigger fraction (25% or so) than in many other treats.

    Permalink

  10. JaredK Posted 9:36 am
    18 Aug 2009

    I have to agree with the detractors on this one. This article--and moreso some of the comments--is in the category of "Steve Milloy bait." We should be very careful when we find ourselves gleefully dreaming of the day when environmental policy will force us to live more circumscribed, restricted lives. You may feel that frequent flying is a luxury that we don't deserve or can't sustain, but to resign ourselves to its loss--or actively hope for it--is defeatist and needlessly Malthusian.I also strongly disagree with the idea of flying less (at least for long-distance flights) as an environmental lifestyle choice. Nothing else makes the whole "carbon footprint" effort into a more transparent example of liberal guilt. If I reduce my footprint by putting solar-powered attic vents into my house, for example, I'm voting with my money, supporting the companies that thought enough to make that kind of product. I'm also not forcing myself to live in the Stone Age. The same applies to buying sustainable food, buying safer cleaning products, buying an electric car, traveling by train rather than car or plane (in those places where this is an actual possibility), or putting solar panels on the roof. All of these accomplish some actual good, in addition to making me feel better about my environmental impact. But if I don't want to fly to London because I'm worried about CO2, there is no alternative whatsoever. All that I accomplish is taking money away from the airlines, which, if enough people do it, will leave them in such trouble that they can't possibly invest in better technology and efficiencies. I don't work for an airline (because someone will probably assume I do), but planes have made the world better, not worse. The idea of a middle-class family cancelling a leisure trip to Australia because fuel is too expensive may warm your hearts, but expensive fuel also restricts and penalizes more important forms of travel: flying abroad to visit a specialist in a rare medical condition you may have, having an engineer visit a new solar plant--or whatever--to work with it so that a similar plant can be built back home, etc. Unlike energy production, ground transport, agriculture, and virtually every other aspect of the environmental movement, intercontinental travel does not have any clear alternatives. There may never be a viable way to get from New York to Paris quickly and safely except through the air. Halting any innovation (or completely new air industry) by grounding commercial aviation is not something we should hope for.

    Permalink

  11. lasmog Posted 9:40 am
    18 Aug 2009

    Let's face it, we're addicted to cheap air travel.  And just as smokers rationalize their right to smoke air travelers rationalize their right to fly.   

    Permalink

    1. JaredK Posted 9:58 am
      18 Aug 2009

      Just like we're addicted to cheap food (that we don't have to grow and kill ourselves), computers, modern medicine (literally, cold-turkey withdrawal might kill us!), and electricity. Global warming is a specific problem that we should try to solve, not an excuse to undo thousands of years of progress.If you feel that the only moral option is to live in a hippie commune and never travel or use electricity, no one is stopping you. But it is not the purpose of government--even less that of environmental legislation--to force us to live in a pre-industrial age.  

      Permalink

      1. Daniel Saltman's avatar

        Daniel Saltman Posted 12:07 pm
        18 Aug 2009

        Yes, I have grown quite fond of my computer and cold milk ;D

        Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement