If want to reduce your carbon footprint, what should you do about your air travel until we have carbon-free jet fuel?
The Stockholm Environment Institute and the Tufts Climate Initiative have a good handout on the subject, titled "Flying Green." They note:
... the average American is responsible for the emissions of about 20 tons of CO2 annually ... If you fly to Europe and back from the U.S., you'll add about 3-4 tons to your (already large) carbon footprint. With one flight you will have caused more emissions than 20 Bangladeshi will cause in a whole year. Unfortunately they are the ones who will lose their homes and livelihood once sea level rise inundates their low lying country.
Personally, I have cut back air travel a great deal to reduce emissions, to spend time with my daughter, to spend more time blogging, and, of course, to spend less time flying, which just isn't very pleasant anymore.
The handout has a number of good suggestions and factoids -- why should flying economy be considered better for the environment than flying business class?
Also, while I'm not a big fan of carbon offsets, the handout offers some good principles for such purchases and then recommends a few offsets companies.
If you want to learn more about the controversial issue of just how much damage to the climate air travel does, you might read this [PDF]. If you want to know more about offsetting air travel emissions, read this [PDF].
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting
This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!
You never get a second chance to make No Impact—oh wait, yes you do
Comments
View as Flat
tico89 Posted 6:31 am
23 Mar 2008
The 'atmosfair' link had a lot about CO2 and just mentioned the other pollutants in passing. Understandable as it pointed out you can't take them all into account as otherwise the calculator would be horrendously complicated. But, the last time I checked, C02 from aviation was 2% of global totals, compared with 4% from shipping. Everyone always assumes CO2 is the big one, but it always seemed to me the biggest villain from aviation was water vapour, because of its effect at those altitudes.
If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 11:13 am
23 Mar 2008
It's not "Americans" who are flying back and forth to Europe...it's Rich Americans.
Al Gore is more responsible for global warming than some guy trying to get his 1995 compact car from his bedroom apartment to his job at WalMart.
The entire "Green Movement" is a way for Rich Liberals to keep oppressing the middle classes in America with taxation.
"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." -- Galileo
Permalink
LPS Posted 11:21 am
23 Mar 2008
Permalink
GreenNPR Posted 3:23 pm
23 Mar 2008
It may dissuade people from traveling by air and perhaps give trains a competitive advantage when it comes cross country trips.
A carbon tax on air travel wont effect the poor and working class as they much as they won't be flying by air anyhows as its financially prohibited for most (many can't afford to leave work and/or the price of travel)
Thoughts?
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 5:01 pm
23 Mar 2008
As jabailo pointed out, Gore travels by jet alot, but he offsets all of his emissions.
Reduction in travel would be best, but when it can't be reasonably done (on a personal level), then offsettin' is probably the next best.
Permalink
Russell Simon Posted 12:28 am
24 Mar 2008
Permalink
John Dewey Posted 1:11 am
24 Mar 2008
It's difficult to envision anyone trading a 6 hour cross country flight for a 62 hour cross country train ride.
Is the carbon footprint per passenger really much better for existing passenger trains?
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:18 am
24 Mar 2008
As jabailo pointed out, Gore travels by jet alot, but he offsets all of his emissions.
Really? Can you point me to a spreasheet? The guy has three houses, one in Beverly Hills. I really would love to see how he offsets his one in a billion lifestyle...
"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." -- Galileo
Permalink
tico89 Posted 3:35 am
24 Mar 2008
The other area in which Europe can serve as a model is trains. People in North America drive or fly because it seems to be much more convenient and faster than taking trains, and it probably is. In Europe, there are a lot of extremely cheap short flights, the kind of thing that needs to be attacked first in cutting down on flights (along with the endless private jets used by so-called 'celebrities'); but still lots of people go by train because it's convenient. It's amazingly easy to go, for example, from Paris to Rome by train, it's not that expensive, and there's a lot better view than you'd see out of a plane! Humans need to be conditioned against the endless need for speed. I think a lot of European trains cut a good balance between a pleasant experience and a short enough trip.
And, LPS, is that really the right attitude? I fly when I have to because there's no alternative for getting out of the country I live in. I intend to avoid flying whenever it's not necessary. It probably helps that I don't much like flying.
If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?
Permalink
John Dewey Posted 4:42 am
24 Mar 2008
I don't see how the European train model can work in the U.S. Distances between large European cities are not that great:
Paris-Milan 392 milesGeneva-Frankfurt 287 milesBrussels-Paris 162 milesWarsaw-Amsterdam 682 miles
Compare that with U.S. distances:
New York-Dallas 1,316 milesDetroit-Miami 1,164 milesAtlanta-Denver 1,205 milesPhiladelphia-Los Angeles 2,398 milesBoston-San Francisco 2,693 miles
Neither business travelers nor tourists are going to give up a 3 to 5 hour flight to sit on a train for 2 or 3 days.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 5:54 am
24 Mar 2008
The same way most offsets work. Computation of one's GHG emissions, followed by investment of money/resources into a variety of "clean tech" or environmental restoration projects that will equal of exceed in reduction/prevention of the GHGs originally emitted.
If ya produce X# of tons of GHG emissions, invest enough so that the same amount gets offset by new wind, solar, renewables, forest or wetland restoration (a bit more unreliable than "green tech", but still...), landfill reduction, recycling programs, etc.
I don't know which ones he uses specifically, only that he doesn't use a firm, but gives the investments directly, usually to a variety of projects. His offsets are certified by the CCE in Chicago, and also under the CDM of the Kyoto Treaty.
That fact that he lives such a "rich" lifestyle, in this case, is actually what allows him to invest so much of his wealth into climate and environmental efforts to begin with.
Permalink
PolluteLessDotCom Posted 6:47 am
24 Mar 2008
He has influence - he uses it to talk to the people who can change things.
He travels a lot - he does it in ways that are acceptable to those who are in power.
If everyone had done what Al Gore says for a long time now needed to be done, he would not have to continue zipping from conference to conference. I suggest we worry about those who do NOT care and pollute even more. Sometimes "Do as I say - not do as I do" is what is right. You have to listen though what he says. Sometimes sharing knowledge and convincing others speaks stronger than personal actions.
The people who live exemplary lives in regard to the environment are dirt poor, completely powerless, without a voice or representation, and stuck where ever they live. Do you expect change to be EFFECTIVELY promoted by those poor suckers? I have never heard Al Gore say that we should all live like he does. I am certain he knows that this is unsustainable. And I am sure he has told those who are equally well off that they should live like him (including putting their power to work for change).
If I stop driving my car to work I will not be able to teach kids about the environment and that driving that far is stupid. Is it a problem? Sure. Is it worth it? I do not know, but I know that making young people aware of that and other problems is worth a lot.
Obviously this is entirely off topic.
Karsten
http://www.polluteless.com
Practical Advice to Pollute Less
Permalink
John Dewey Posted 7:03 am
24 Mar 2008
I also know that it is worth a lot to help young people aware of tradeoffs and of risks. Are you able to teach young people that we don't have all the answers today? and that we had a different set of questions to debate 20 and 30 and 50 years ago when today's seemingly-poor choices were made? Are you able to point to the progress that Americans have made since 1971, or do you choose to only teach them how far we have to go?
Permalink
Green Baby Posted 8:47 am
24 Mar 2008
At Green Baby Guide focuses on down-to-earth ways to save time, money and the planet with a baby in tow.
Permalink
sunsetbeachguy Posted 12:39 pm
24 Mar 2008
I don't know whether Joe is really that much of a blind optimist or just not trying to scare the sheeple.
The idea of mass affordable air travel was a nice little concept that lasted about 30 years.
Carbon neutral (sequestered) jet fuel will ensure only the relatively elite fly, either an explicit or implicit carbon tax.
Sunsetbeachguy
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 1:25 pm
24 Mar 2008
Permalink
LPS Posted 1:46 pm
24 Mar 2008
Yes.
Permalink
John Dewey Posted 11:27 pm
24 Mar 2008
You know, the people who run the world's passenger airlines are not stupid. Neither are the people who run Airbus and Boeing. If the future of air passenger travel were truly at risk, neither group of executives would be signing long term contracts to buy and sell the next generation of passenger aircraft.
Permalink
LPS Posted 2:58 am
25 Mar 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:03 am
25 Mar 2008
It claims that burning wood is considered to be carbon neutral.
So I guess replacing a propane cooking stove (in an under developed region)with a wood stove would constutute a good target for offset money?
The problem is that they both put CO2 and soot into the atmosphere. Releasing it from a source that is storing CO2 out of the atmosphere.
If I buy enough carbon offsets to buy a wood stove that replaces a propane stove, then how much CO2 and soot release is curtailed? None.
So the CO2 and soot release by the air travel purportedly offset, is actually not offset, furthermore a wood stove is manufactured and transported to a remote region(by air?). Releasing more tons of CO2.
Offsets, flawed from the start, with the assumption that burning wood and biomass is carbon neutral. Are there similar assumptions at every level and every aspect of the offset theories?
Incentivize renewable energy and conservation with a 10 cent per kwh subsidy directly to homeowners, farmers, and small business to use solar, wind, and biogas from farm waste and use geo heat exchange and plugin hybrid conservation technology.
Forget carbon offsetting or trading or taxing. None of it makes much sense when carefully examined. Just withdraw subsidies from carbon intensive energy to pay for the 10 cent per kwh subsidy.
That will cause industry to pass on costs to consumers, a tax they will claim. it raises prices like a tax, but it is really an end to corporate welfare that will eventually lower energy costs.
It is a trading scheme, in that it withdraws huge amounts of money from the carbon energy industry and puts it into renewables. A big trade.
It's an offset, because everyone using it will pay more, and the amount they pay will be in turn invested in renewables directly. With a payout directly to investors in their own solar panels or wind farm.
No middle men, no hedge funds, no "non-profit" offset industry, no nonsense about burning biomass being carbon neutral. Just the facts, produce a GHG free kwh, get 10 cents. Save a kwh (or it's fuel equivalent) and get 10 cents.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
anotherID Posted 3:15 am
25 Mar 2008
How many airline bankrupctcies have we already witnessed before carbon regulation.
It is a revolving door of airline bankruptcies.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:39 am
25 Mar 2008
10 or 20 times that 3 or 4 tons?
If fuel prices doubled would executive jet travel be curtailed? Price is not a factor in this industry. If fact, the more it costs, the more the status conferred by using it.
Consumers and taxpayers pay the bills for executive travel afterall. In higher taxes and more expensive goods and services.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
John Dewey Posted 12:36 am
26 Mar 2008
What does airline bankruptcies have to do with the number of passengers who fly or the viability of one of the world's largest industries? Airlines went bankrupt in the 1970's, in the 1980's, in the 1990's, and in the 21st century. Yet passenger miles traveled worldwide has continued to grow over those four decades.
Even if the cost of jet fuel doubles in real, inflation-adjusted dollars - which is highly unlikely - the cost of air travel will remain far below any other form for trips longer than 400 miles.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:44 am
26 Mar 2008
Renewable electric high speed commuter rail could beat it, for cost and travel time, and especially GHG. Build it in tubes in the freeway median.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
John Dewey Posted 12:46 am
26 Mar 2008
What does that mean? There are now a dozen so-called experts where there were once four?
Anyone can offer an opinion - and even claim it is informed. The real test, though, is how much money one is ready to bet on one's opinion. Airlines, aircraft manufacturers, energy companies, and millions of private investors are still placing their bets on the cost-effectiveness of air travel and a long-term supply of fossil fuels.
How much money would be invested on alternative energy without government incentives and government regulations? How much money would be invested in North American passenger trains if taxpayers and gasoline purchasers weren't heavily subsidizing rail? Government intervention in markets leads to .... shortages? lack of choices? collapse of the Soviet union? a rebirth of free markets in China?
Permalink
John Dewey Posted 12:59 am
26 Mar 2008
Not a chance of matching 550 mph any time soon. Certainly security checkpoint time delays add minutes to every flight, but for trips longer than 500 miles this won't make any difference.
To add enough rail capacity to make a dent in air passenger transport would require $ trillions. Where is that going to come from? Governments facing huge funding problems for retirement and health care?
Investors keep pumping money into the air industry. Airline passenger fares and taxes pay for airport maintenance and air traffic control. There's plenty of money to fund air transport. There's plenty of airline passenger voters who will resist changes to the status quo.
Environmentalists should realize that eliminating air passenger travel is the least achievable of their targets. Put your efforts into something that can get done.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:59 am
26 Mar 2008
So you think the hedge funds are doing a good job helping "free" markets efficiently manage global credit? I guess a worldwide recession is just a cost of economic "freedom" then.
Neocon corporatist bushwacking is working out just fine then?
Without government bailouts and military spending to develop every new generation of aircraft since the Wright brothers, who would be able to afford air travel now?
Free marketeerians always turn into socialists when corporate corruption crashes the economy. Demanding handouts from taxpayers. Where are the handouts for taxpayers whose jobs have been outsourced with bushwacker tax breaks?
Where's the government backed mortgage insurance for victims of hedge fund crime?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:12 am
26 Mar 2008
Have you seen the news reports of air commuters stranded in airports for days due to weather delays, with absolutely no recvourse? If they complain they risk "homeland security" related sentences of up to 10 years.
And those cockpit doors that were finally installed (were they really)? A drunk passenger bashed his head through one a few years back.
And guess what? Package delivery aircraft still have no security around them, another 911 waiting to happen. So much for "free" market efficiency.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
In the belly Posted 1:16 am
26 Mar 2008
The airlines are already whining about the high cost of fuel (and looking to their pilots and others to make more or continued wage concessions). Aircraft manufacturers are worried about the effect of high fuel prices on their customers, fighting amongst themselves for a share of the smaller pie, and looking to the continued good market in warcraft (and complaining loudly when they don't get a lucrative tanker contract, for instance).
And energy companies? The are admitting that there will be a peak in oil production and are scrambling to get the last few concessions available to non-NOC entities, while throwing cash at politicians to open up every possible public land to exploration and exploitation. They have quite the er...business model, in that scarcity of their product makes the price go up and compensate for their declining production. Maybe it is a good bet, but it doesn't mean that low-energy transportation choices don't get more attractive when costs go up (as evidenced by increases in Amtrak ridership).
And if you want to talk about subsidies, well, there is a lot of room to talk about what the parties you have listed are receiving.
Permalink
John Dewey Posted 1:20 am
26 Mar 2008
Government bailouts just prolong inefficiencies in the airline industry. Few airlines wanted the post 9/11 loan guarantees, and only two of the larger airlines even applied for them. Government bailouts were the work of senators of Pennsylvania and Arizona who wanted to save U.S. Airways and America West from certain bankruptcy. A healthier industry would have emerged without those bailouts.
I disagree with your assessment that military spending was necessary for the development of jet aircraft travel. Certainly Boeing and McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed took advantage of military-sponsored innovations. But there is no way to know whether those innovations would have developed anyway.
It was government protection of airline route monopolies and government fare setting that hindered the developemnt of passenger air travel for decades. The explosive growth of that industry after deregulation is clear evidence that government intervention harmed rather than helped passenger air travel.
Permalink
John Dewey Posted 1:31 am
26 Mar 2008
I know a few airline executives personally. They are required by law to provide shareholders - the owners of their companies - with hard facts underlying the performance of their companies. I hardly would characterize their statements to shareholders and to the press about fuel costs as "whining".
and looking to their pilots and others to make more or continued wage concessions
As one who has sat across the table from pilot union representatives, I fully understand the bargaining process. Do you? Would you expect airline negotiators to do anything other than ask unions for concessions?
As airlines such as Southwest and Virgin America grow, it is only natural that profits of legacy carriers come under pressure. Don't mistake the shakeout of inefficient companies as signs of peril to an entire industry.
Permalink
In the belly Posted 1:47 am
26 Mar 2008
Okay, increasing fuel costs are impacting the performance of airlines. I'm glad we can find a point of agreement.
Would you expect airline negotiators to do anything other than ask unions for concessions?
Well, I would expect that after extracting concessions in the past that brought the airlines back to profitibility, and then taking big bonuses, that someone with ethics, a sense of fairness, and integrity wouldn't ask for more concessions...oh, I see your point. Okay, two points of agreement.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:47 am
26 Mar 2008
Keep ranting your way into re-regulation. It's coming. Despite bushwackers appointed to the supreme court who believe corporations are citizens under our constitution.
The trouble is that corporations never do jail time. They do the crime, bank the money, our money, offshore. Then evaporate into bankruptcy, complete with golden parachutes for the execs.
We want real competitive capitalsim to get the benefit of tax breaks, homeowners, farnmers, local small business and manufacturing. Not multinational hedge fund thieves. Fronting for saudi/bushco terror funding kleptocracy.
Real political freedom, real represntation, real competitive capitalism, real change and innovation. With honest, fair government regulation and enforcement. That is the prescription to cure lobbyist corporatism.
Fill country club white collar crime prisons with hedge fund thieves.
They are the modern day "redcoats" enforcing free marketeerian tyranny, taking jobs, homes, resources, the value of our currency and banking it in Dubai. let's have another revolution!
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
John Dewey Posted 1:55 am
26 Mar 2008
In the belly: "as evidenced by increases in Amtrak ridership"
Have either of you seen any data on airline and rail passenger travel? The airline industry continues to grow, by about 24 million additional U.S. passengers in 2007. That one year increase - a mere 3.2% addition - is about the same as Amtrak's FY2007 total ridership of 25 million.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:55 am
26 Mar 2008
Or in an airport, or on an airplane on the runway. 12 hour waits in planes with sewage overflowing are reported regularly now.
But don't complain! You will be held as a terrorist suspect.
Or left to strangle in a holding area, or be strip searched in line, or maybe held indefinitely until you promise not to sue when you complain because your pregnant wife is being strip searched in public. or be wrestled to the ground because you don't want to give up your baby's favorite sippy cup, because it might contain a bomb?
That's corporate freedom at it's finest. Sell the highways to Halliburton next? That blackwater highway patrol will keep motorists in line!
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
John Dewey Posted 2:01 am
26 Mar 2008
There is nothing unethical or unfair about asking for concessions from workers. Again, the leaders of corporations are required by law to represent the interests of their employers, the shareholders. The leaders of unions are required by law to represent the interests of their union members. Why would you expect anything else?
Perhaps you do not agree with the collective bargaining process, which forces the two sides to adopt adversarial roles. Please remember, though, that it is the workers and not the employers who vote for that process.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:03 am
26 Mar 2008
Real high speed rail, running on solar panels mounted on a tube in the median of freeways. Aluminum and composite trains that fly in the tube at over 200 mph.
Maybe that's 21st century technology?
I wonder why lobbyists for auto and airline industries would gobble up all the tax breaks and block every innovation that they can? Leaving passenger train technology to die off of neglect?
Because that's free marketeerian corporate governance. De-regulation.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
John Dewey Posted 2:07 am
26 Mar 2008
Obviously, travelers are selecting air travel. As I pointed out, the growth in the airline passenger industry continues, at a rate higher than the U.S. population growth. The growth in international air travel is even higher.
You can probably find many opinions about how airline travel is undesirable, from an environmental and comfort standpoint. But the real vote that matters is how consumers spend their dollars.
Permalink
John Dewey Posted 2:18 am
26 Mar 2008
Please explain the tax breaks that have been provided to the airline industry since deregulation in 1978. As I explained before, most airlines lobbied against the post-9/11 grants and loans. Airlines pay for air traffic control and airports through user fees.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:23 am
26 Mar 2008
I got another nightmare for corporate "citizen" airline industry conglomerates.
How about high speed trains bridging the oceans, with a few tubes underwater here and there between the continents? Could high speed trains even "fly" at over 300 mph in tubes?
Aircraft fly at much higher speeds, why not aircraft in tubes, cushioned by air pressure between the tube and the train? It's perfectly feasible, and renewable electric powerable.
Cancel gas guzzling air travel and develop plugin hybrid air travel instead. Batteries theoretically can match liquid fuel energy density and will do it someday in reality.
Gas turbines are under 20% efficient. Electric motors over 90%. Energy for takeoff can be transferred to aircraft via tuned induction along the runway. Hybrid fuel cell/turbines could power takeoffs using 10% of the normal fuel.
Why not phase out old gas guzzling air travel in favor of renewable electric trains specially designed to carry passengers and air freight. Then work on new renewably powered aircraft with better battery, inductive power transfer, and fuel cell/turbine engine techologies. It's real economy stimulating, GHG free investment.
Kids graduating college would have jobs again. And not want to "volunteer" to join a bush oil war team near them.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
PolluteLessDotCom Posted 5:50 am
26 Mar 2008
There is a price to pay for this. And we have and are paying it. Is it not time to rethink this a bit? Or a lot? The energy we used to construct this attitude upon is running out. You cannot travel as conveniently or fast as now to far away places with clean energy. At least not as many people as now or even a decade ago. If the energy crisis turns as bad as some portrait it to be, tourism, travel, and business as we know them are dead for the vast majority of humans on this planet. Much less than today. Taking it for granted will not be possible much longer, I fear.
Is it not time to think this over now and adjust our life-style (voluntarily) sooner rather than (forced) later?
Karsten
http://www.polluteless.com
Practical Advice To Pollute Less
Permalink