Comment by wahsd | Hacker News Reader

Comment by wahsd | Hacker News Reader

Isn't there some jet or jet like propulsion engine that was developed in the UK a couple years ago that may offer far more efficient and even harder thrust that could revive high speed air travel?

Is that what that boom.aero post was about? Sorry, I wasn't able to read into it.

Either way, when these things come up, I am always curious what happened to the realization that air travel is a multitude worse than any other type of air pollution because it essentially directly delivers harmful particles right into the highest strata of our atmosphere. Is that no longer a concern with the jet-setting, globe trotting liberals? Or is it too inconvenient to their lifestyle and therefore will simply be ignored? Or maybe scientists were totally wrong about fundamental research?

> I am always curious what happened to the realization that air travel is a multitude worse than any other type of air pollution because it essentially directly delivers harmful particles right into the highest strata of our atmosphere. Is that no longer a concern with the jet-setting, globe trotting liberals?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviati...

"The IPCC has estimated that aviation is responsible for around 3.5% of anthropogenic climate change, a figure which includes both CO2 and non-CO2 induced effects. The IPCC has produced scenarios estimating what this figure could be in 2050. The central case estimate is that aviation’s contribution could grow to 5% of the total contribution by 2050 if action is not taken to tackle these emissions, though the highest scenario is 15%."

So, it's a concern, but far from the largest. There have been pretty significant advances in fuel efficiency, lighter aircraft, stuffing more people into a single plane, etc.

I think the question is the proportionality, i.e., is that 3.5 or 5% impact a disproportionate one. The absolute percentages of even just 3.5% means nothing without seeing it in relative terms. If that 3.5% is caused by 0.0001% of activity then that seems rather significant. I don't see air travel being anything even remotely close to 3.5% of all human climate affecting activity so it strikes me that it really is actually a rather significant matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_(spacecraft)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com