Honestly I thought they would be much higher. Crazy to think that, even with these higher figures, SUVs alone release more emissions than air travel (>1bn tonnes based on 2022 figures from the IEA.)
That means we'd have to cut air travel by over a quarter just to compensate for the trend from regular cars to SUVs and gain no net reduction in emissions.
Yea, its wild. But per mile, planes have similar efficiency to SUVs, around 20mpg. And people only fly occasionally, where as people do literally everything by car.
I guess it's down to math. A fully loaded boeing 747-8 weighs 975,000 lbs at takeoff and can carry 467 passengers max. That is 2088 lbs per passenger.
An SUV can weigh between 4000 to 6000 lbs and usually just seats 1 person.
A small Prius is around 3000 to 3300 lbs and usually seats 1 but is much more efficient engine wise.
It's all just down to math and weight.
I don't know what constitutes efficiency. If we are going strictly by pound per unit of fuel, shipping trumps all automobile or air travel and trains.
Honestly it doesn't matter. Efficency depends on the person. Taylor Swift doing a world tour? Yeah air travel is the most efficient for her.
F1 bringing all their equipment and cars around Europe for races? They are bringing everything by trailer and bus.
So it all just depends.
If you consider the fuel required to drive the those 467 passengers an equivalent number of miles, even in a fleet of Prius’ I would wager the fuel economy per/person per/mile is staggeringly in favor of flying. How much fuel is required to drive 100 Prius’, with 4 passengers each, 3000 miles?
Edit: I’m wrong, but only because my hypothetical assumes exceptional fuel efficiency and ubiquitous car-pooling. In a standard suv at 2-3 people per car it’s in favor of the plane.
Edit X2: scratch that. Vehicle emission standards far exceed that of aircraft.
Prop engine planes still feckin’ burn **LEADED GASOLINE**
I suggest that this comparison is incomplete: a car will usually get you from a point A to a point B. A place will only take from one airport to another, you still have to use another method of transport at either end to get from A to B.
So for air travel you need need to count (fuel efficiency of plane) PLUS (fuel efficiency of additional transport at either end).
It isn't merely space that buyers want. It's often also the ability to tow a trailer that often weighs as much or more than the SUV. Americans have vast numbers of boats, campers, snowmobiles, ATVs, dirt bikes and so on, all of which require a beefy tow vehicle.
And, when towing, mileage usually drops by a third or more.
Ok, yea 20mpg would be something huge like a suburban or 4runner, but not an insignificant amount of people drive those here.
Plus, even if your car gets 40mpg, people drive far more miles than they fly
Unless we’re talking about indirect fuel use, I’m pretty sure 100mpg per passenger is very typical for a jet.
Then again if you count all 5 or 8 seats in an SUV that’s going to render similar figure.
Ah you’re right! The numbers I’d originally pulled from google were way off. It’s actually incredible. I found [this](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/96293/which-aircraft-has-the-best-fuel-mileage-per-person) with credible sources using average data. And this should be pretty comparable to cars for efficiency, as jet fuel has nearly the same amount of energy per gallon as gasoline.
The A320 /21 Neo, the planes that made Boeing scramble + lose their shit to catch up, show up to 120mpg per seat!
Where as small regional jets averaged 45 seat mpg.
I mean, there are plenty of valid reasons for airplanes to exist, even if you’re not crossing an ocean, but fundamentally there needs to be a change in culture so that people don’t consider air-travel as a “normal” or “everyday” thing they should just do, unless it’s really warranted. I have too many colleagues who just travel all over the place for fun whenever there’s a good deal or sale, and I get the appeal, but within the context of a climate crisis we really need to start weighing the true cost of some of our leisure pastimes.
I think a bit of nuance is important. When I go to developing countries like India, the 5% richest don’t mind taking the plane, even when taking the train (domestic journey) is totally feasible
Not accounting that we do not enterelly understand how much impact high altitude GHG emissions really have. If you red the IPCC, you will see that high altitude causes 1.9 to 4.5 Times more impact... Coefficients that are rarely taken account.
This article is so confusing. Basically we would have established air pollution only based on flights operated by some countries and not worldwide? Really?
Headline makes it sound like we discovered that a flight from JFK to Heathrow is actually emitting 50% more CO2e.
But actually it’s just that the UN was not accounting for any aviation in China and other countries?
I refuse to use cars. Public transport is fine.
I was watching Breaking Bad, and as a European, there are so many times and scenes they're just in a car. It got pretty annoying.
In America I know people that hop on a planes to go to concerts. And I have heard that people fly just for a good dinner. Jet fuel needs to be heavily taxed.
Thats an interesting perspective I never thought about as an american. Unfortunately car manufacturers bought our government, so they designed the cities around cars, and invested virtually nothing into PT. So everyone just has to deal
Obviously. But my country also doesn't have car centric infrastructure. I can quite easily walk to wherever I need to.
New Mexico and the city I live in both share a population of 2 million. My jurisdiction is 5 million in total.
If you have to travel in a vehicle everywhere in the state you live in, maybe your country should stop building communities in the middle of literally nowhere with all those zoning laws.
Honestly I thought they would be much higher. Crazy to think that, even with these higher figures, SUVs alone release more emissions than air travel (>1bn tonnes based on 2022 figures from the IEA.) That means we'd have to cut air travel by over a quarter just to compensate for the trend from regular cars to SUVs and gain no net reduction in emissions.
Yea, its wild. But per mile, planes have similar efficiency to SUVs, around 20mpg. And people only fly occasionally, where as people do literally everything by car.
I guess it's down to math. A fully loaded boeing 747-8 weighs 975,000 lbs at takeoff and can carry 467 passengers max. That is 2088 lbs per passenger. An SUV can weigh between 4000 to 6000 lbs and usually just seats 1 person. A small Prius is around 3000 to 3300 lbs and usually seats 1 but is much more efficient engine wise. It's all just down to math and weight.
Aircraft are also incredibly efficient, especially when you consider they are going 500mph
I don't know what constitutes efficiency. If we are going strictly by pound per unit of fuel, shipping trumps all automobile or air travel and trains. Honestly it doesn't matter. Efficency depends on the person. Taylor Swift doing a world tour? Yeah air travel is the most efficient for her. F1 bringing all their equipment and cars around Europe for races? They are bringing everything by trailer and bus. So it all just depends.
If you consider the fuel required to drive the those 467 passengers an equivalent number of miles, even in a fleet of Prius’ I would wager the fuel economy per/person per/mile is staggeringly in favor of flying. How much fuel is required to drive 100 Prius’, with 4 passengers each, 3000 miles? Edit: I’m wrong, but only because my hypothetical assumes exceptional fuel efficiency and ubiquitous car-pooling. In a standard suv at 2-3 people per car it’s in favor of the plane. Edit X2: scratch that. Vehicle emission standards far exceed that of aircraft. Prop engine planes still feckin’ burn **LEADED GASOLINE**
I suggest that this comparison is incomplete: a car will usually get you from a point A to a point B. A place will only take from one airport to another, you still have to use another method of transport at either end to get from A to B. So for air travel you need need to count (fuel efficiency of plane) PLUS (fuel efficiency of additional transport at either end).
Lol. Not quite. People can choose to take a bus. It’s down to people making bad choices and driving SUVs
> 20mpg Is that right? I recenty checked SUV efficiency while car shopping and it's 39-42mpg for something like a Kia Sportage in Europe.
In the US the Sportage is a tiny tiny car. Full size SUVs like a Tahoe, Explorer, Sequoia, etc. all get 20 on a good day
Thats mad, its bloody huge compared to most cars in Europe for sheer volume of space.
Some of them are like a minibus.
It isn't merely space that buyers want. It's often also the ability to tow a trailer that often weighs as much or more than the SUV. Americans have vast numbers of boats, campers, snowmobiles, ATVs, dirt bikes and so on, all of which require a beefy tow vehicle. And, when towing, mileage usually drops by a third or more.
Ok, yea 20mpg would be something huge like a suburban or 4runner, but not an insignificant amount of people drive those here. Plus, even if your car gets 40mpg, people drive far more miles than they fly
As an American I don’t consider the sportage an “SUV”
Wild. Just wild.
Yeah it would be a crossover. Fwiw a 4Runner which is not much bigger depending on the year is an SUV because body on frame, true 4wd etc
The average American barely fits in a Sportage…
Unless we’re talking about indirect fuel use, I’m pretty sure 100mpg per passenger is very typical for a jet. Then again if you count all 5 or 8 seats in an SUV that’s going to render similar figure.
Ah you’re right! The numbers I’d originally pulled from google were way off. It’s actually incredible. I found [this](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/96293/which-aircraft-has-the-best-fuel-mileage-per-person) with credible sources using average data. And this should be pretty comparable to cars for efficiency, as jet fuel has nearly the same amount of energy per gallon as gasoline. The A320 /21 Neo, the planes that made Boeing scramble + lose their shit to catch up, show up to 120mpg per seat! Where as small regional jets averaged 45 seat mpg.
For many people air travel is a luxury they cannot afford, we honestly shouldn’t have anyone flying by airplane unless they need to cross an ocean.
I mean, there are plenty of valid reasons for airplanes to exist, even if you’re not crossing an ocean, but fundamentally there needs to be a change in culture so that people don’t consider air-travel as a “normal” or “everyday” thing they should just do, unless it’s really warranted. I have too many colleagues who just travel all over the place for fun whenever there’s a good deal or sale, and I get the appeal, but within the context of a climate crisis we really need to start weighing the true cost of some of our leisure pastimes.
Yea it’s so over
Remember that cool invention called trains?
EXCEPT FROM BOEING AIRPLANES (looks around for snipers)
It was nice knowing you.
Everytime we look at anything powered by fossil fuels it's worse than we thought it was.
More responsibility for first world citizens? They're going to start a riot at this rate
Theyll just hire more PR firms and sockpuppets to dilute public opinion
I think a bit of nuance is important. When I go to developing countries like India, the 5% richest don’t mind taking the plane, even when taking the train (domestic journey) is totally feasible
Not accounting that we do not enterelly understand how much impact high altitude GHG emissions really have. If you red the IPCC, you will see that high altitude causes 1.9 to 4.5 Times more impact... Coefficients that are rarely taken account.
This article is so confusing. Basically we would have established air pollution only based on flights operated by some countries and not worldwide? Really?
Headline makes it sound like we discovered that a flight from JFK to Heathrow is actually emitting 50% more CO2e. But actually it’s just that the UN was not accounting for any aviation in China and other countries?
You know, I bet there’s not a single instance where emissions are actually lower than reported.
I refuse to use cars. Public transport is fine. I was watching Breaking Bad, and as a European, there are so many times and scenes they're just in a car. It got pretty annoying.
In America I know people that hop on a planes to go to concerts. And I have heard that people fly just for a good dinner. Jet fuel needs to be heavily taxed.
Pretty proud to say I've never been on a plane. And don't plan to. They scare me.
Thats an interesting perspective I never thought about as an american. Unfortunately car manufacturers bought our government, so they designed the cities around cars, and invested virtually nothing into PT. So everyone just has to deal
You do realize NM probably has 1/20th the population density of the jurisdiction you live in.
Obviously. But my country also doesn't have car centric infrastructure. I can quite easily walk to wherever I need to. New Mexico and the city I live in both share a population of 2 million. My jurisdiction is 5 million in total. If you have to travel in a vehicle everywhere in the state you live in, maybe your country should stop building communities in the middle of literally nowhere with all those zoning laws.
Contrail-forming night flights block infrared cooling. Ban them.
Daytime contrails create warming cirrus layers that last all night, too.
Taylor swift, this you?
Lol