Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by nullwasamistake | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

nullwasamistake

IMO this is an elitist point of view. Taxing will only serve to make travel a luxury for the elite, as it once was.

The only reason tourism has increased so much is because it's become affordable to the middle class.

The economy will adapt. There will be more tourist destinations to cancel out the increased crowds, with time.

Flying is a great way to travel in an environmentally friendly way. It's far less wasteful per mile than driving.

View on HN

Airplanes produce more greenhouse gas emissions per km than other travel methods. Over a nominal 1100 km, a generic passenger liner will produce 0.17 metric ton, whilst trains contribute a quarter to less than a tenth that, and coach buses a fifth. The same distance would be like driving a petrol car averaging about 36 US mpg or 6.5 L/100 km -- but your family of 4, let's say, would split that emissions impact in the car, where in the airplane it'd be 4x.

The notion that jetsetting should be a right of the masses is a myth built on future generations paying for the damage mass flying does today. Thinking ubiquitous travel should be cheap and trivially available may actually be the elitist view, as the elite or wealthy will be the only ones able to protect their way of life as the natural environment changes and cities become more difficult to live or work in.

Edit: I used https://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx, who describe their methodology here: https://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculatorfaqs.html

I think your math is off - planes are usually loaded with people and per person mile far better than a mere roadtrip. You should divide the airplane emissions by at least 70. Fluid friction vs rolling helps a lot.

While trains and fully loaded buses may be superior it is still far from the worst evil for long distances.

You can have a look at the calculations if you'd like. There's a deceptively high amount of emissions with jet kerosene, even with the planes loaded up.

https://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx

This source from US govt shows that planes are very efficient in MPG https://afdc.energy.gov/data/mobile/10311

Cabron density of kerosine vs gasoline isn't that different.

Maybe the carbon footprint website doesn't consider average occupancy? Cars and busses usually cruise around at far less than their passenger capacity, not so for planes

> this is an elitist point of view

putting the environment before humans will always be an "-ist" point of view to somebody.

> Taxing will only serve to make travel a luxury for the elite, as it once was.

sure but why not use older technology such as sail boats for everyone else? If you want to travel across the world, it will take you months.

>The economy will adapt. ...with time.

We're out of time. Social justice takes back seat while we get back on track environmentally.

Flying is environmentally friendly? That's a bold statement

Fuel is a huge airline expense so people are packed into an aluminum can at maximum density. It's public transit, except the seats are nearly full at every stop.

Fuel economy is about 75 mpg per passenger. This is nearly twice the average mileage as busses, and better than nearly any other realistic form of travel https://afdc.energy.gov/data/mobile/10311

(Other sources give 75mpg for airline average but this may be for a full plane)

It's a huge misconception that flying is a wasteful means of travel. It's practically the most efficient means there is

Interesting that buses are so "unfriendly". But it probably makes sense if most of the times they cruise with nearly no passengers.

Thanks for the info.

These data, and your broader argument seem to ignore that rail travel can be relatively easily converted to renewable energy, while flying (so far) cannot. Aviation alone would consume 25% of our 2050 carbon budget.

It can locally, but not economically in a huge country like the US. Electrified rail is a lot more maintinence.

For long distance travel were going to be using fossil fuel for a long time, at least until batteries double or so in density.

A car with two people can get over 75 mpg per passenger..

The right motorcycle with two riders can get over 120!

An SUV with 8 people can get 200 mpg/person. The link considers average occupancy. Planes are highly efficient because they're usually full

Average occupancy is only relevant from a system view. If I'm driving my own car, it's the actual occupancy that matters.

So yes, if I'm traveling solo, a plane beats car. But with multiple people, car wins.

This doesn't change flying being a more efficient means of travel. Despite many incentives to carpool and take public transportation, planes are still more efficient because the high travel speed makes being packed like sadines worth it

How are you defining efficient? Airlines are time efficient but obviously not environmentally efficient.

They are environmentally efficient, see the link I posted. They're one of the most fuel efficient means of transport

It's "not wasteful" if you assume that everybody is going to travel a fixed distance, regardless of the price and availability of flights. That's obviously not true. In an instance of Jevon's Paradox, the increasing efficiency of travel has increased the amount of travelling done, and vastly so.

Its also not the same fuel so comparing mpg is apples to oranges. LAX covers south LA in damaging small particulate pollution that you wont find anywhere not downwind of an airport.

> Flying is a great way to travel in an environmentally friendly way. It's far less wasteful per mile than driving.

Good thing these aren't the only ways to travel then. The fact that driving is insanely wasteful doesn't mean flying is environmentally friendly.

Driving a modern car is more environmentally friendly than flying

https://www.thoughtco.com/flying-driving-which-better-for-en...

How many people drive thousands of miles in a single day for a one week holiday?

Flying and driving aren't that easy to compare. It's going to depend on the car's efficiency, number of people in the car, whether the plane is full, and whether you measure it based on distance or time.

> It's far less wasteful per mile than driving.

That may be true but both driving and flying are unfriendly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com