I don't quite understand this. I guess the point is to do a stunt, but it also shows how useful carbon dioxide emissions are. You can cross the Atlantic in 100 days with zero emissions or a few hours with carbon dioxide emissions...
By my back of the envelope math, burning 600000 kcal should produce couple hundred kg of CO2. You could also make that crossing in less than a third of the time under sail, with about a third of the daily calorie consumption, for maybe a tenth of the CO2 output.
> Preparations for this special challenge have been ongoing for many months. However, for a project like this to come together, a lot of things have to fit together perfectly.
Take all the people, time and energy spend on preparations! It is probably several tons of CO2! Very long list of sponsors!
I refuse to believe, that super economy flight for $130 has higher CO2 emmisions than this stunt! It is like taking public transport!
Taking the 6000km flight produces an additional ~1 ton of CO2 per passenger. A 777 emits around 10000kg per hour, or something like 70,000 kg of CO2 for one flight from Portugal to French Guiana. That doesn’t count the people breathing on the flight, and it doesn’t make any sense to compare a 7 hour flight to a few people taking several months to plan and execute an extreme paddle board trip. It’s the rate of additional CO2 emissions that matter, not the total number.
[1] https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/environment-quirky-science...
I would say it takes a lot of fossil fuels to feed humans!!!
But I will keep this link, next time someone says I should eat bugs!
BTW the cows vs bugs thing is because raising the scale of cattle we have is also completely unnecessary, and cows emit methane, which is way worse than CO2 and why cattle does count as ag emissions and is a concern.
Armchair climate science aside, it doesn’t actually matter where emissions are coming from, what matters is whether we can reduce them. We can’t really choose to stop breathing, and even if we did it cannot solve the problem we’ve created at all - human CO2 emissions is too small of a portion of total emissions. We can, however, choose to reduce fossil fuel and red meat consumption, and those things can make a real difference.
Human is the engine here!
Take old galleys where hundred people rowed single boat. All that food to feed them! That is not very effient transport!
Which is fine for a lot of the cross-Atlantic shipping traffic that is currently contributing to the CO2 emissions.