|
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2019 8:02:50 GMT
I agree, a Conservative "Green Deal" would change the world.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528 
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on May 2, 2019 8:54:33 GMT
Report "Net Zero – The UK’s contribution to stopping global warming" published today by the Committee on Climate Change here (PDF)
Couple of points in that report about aviation that stood out for me: "a fully zero-carbon plane is not anticipated to be available by 2050, particularly for long-haul flights which account for the majority of emissions."
"New UK policies will therefore be needed to manage growth in demand. These could include carbon pricing, reforms to Air Passenger Duty, or policies to manage the use of airport capacity"
---
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on May 2, 2019 12:00:51 GMT
over a sandwich have been reading the times report on the report (so to speak). One thing that jumped out at me that I wasn't previously aware of, namely the impact of frequent flyers. It said that 15% of passengers were responsible for about 70% of aircraft emissions (it said this in the context of frequent/regular flyers, rather than specifically due to e.g. disproportionate impact of long haul).
The fastest way to get to a zero carbon aircraft might just be for someone to invent video conferencing......
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on May 2, 2019 12:40:01 GMT
over a sandwich have been reading the times report on the report (so to speak). One thing that jumped out at me that I wasn't previously aware of, namely the impact of frequent flyers. It said that 15% of passengers were responsible for about 70% of aircraft emissions (it said this in the context of frequent/regular flyers, rather than specifically due to e.g. disproportionate impact of long haul).
The fastest way to get to a zero carbon aircraft might just be for someone to invent video conferencing......
Wrt to CO2 and flying, I came across this recently, which allows you to calculate the CO2 footprint for a flight. Tried it for Economy return LHR<->JFK and Business class return, latter being almost 3 times the former. So, they believe you should apportion CO2 by square footage around the passenger. I think it would be more valid to apportion it by the weight of the passenger and their luggage.
(Was just watching the weather report on the BBC lunchtime - said May bank holiday 2018 was one of the hottest on record, whereas this year's looked like being one of the coldest. Ah, global warming  ).
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,043
Likes: 4,437
Member is Online
|
Post by agent69 on May 2, 2019 12:51:18 GMT
Maybe if the temperature in this country was a few degrees higher, less people would be inclined to jet off long haul for their holidays.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2019 13:02:03 GMT
Just to back up my numbers from last night
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world's volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide.
Dwarfed
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,014
Likes: 5,142
|
Post by adrianc on May 2, 2019 13:08:59 GMT
Wrt to CO2 and flying, I came across this recently, which allows you to calculate the CO2 footprint for a flight. Tried it for Economy return LHR<->JFK and Business class return, latter being almost 3 times the former. So, they believe you should apportion CO2 by square footage around the passenger. I think it would be more valid to apportion it by the weight of the passenger and their luggage. As a concept, it's as good a generality as any. Fill the plane with cattleclass. You get 300 people in. Divide flight CO2 by 300. Fill the plane with business. You get 120 people in. Divide flight CO2 by 120. Fill the plane with first. You get 75 people in. Divide flight CO2 by 75. <altogether now...> GLOBAL CLIMATE IS NOT LOCAL WEATHER
|
|
macq
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 1,199
|
Post by macq on May 2, 2019 13:14:43 GMT
over a sandwich have been reading the times report on the report (so to speak). One thing that jumped out at me that I wasn't previously aware of, namely the impact of frequent flyers. It said that 15% of passengers were responsible for about 70% of aircraft emissions (it said this in the context of frequent/regular flyers, rather than specifically due to e.g. disproportionate impact of long haul).
The fastest way to get to a zero carbon aircraft might just be for someone to invent video conferencing......
Lets hope they did not fly the lettuce in for your sarnie
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on May 2, 2019 13:20:18 GMT
over a sandwich have been reading the times report on the report (so to speak). One thing that jumped out at me that I wasn't previously aware of, namely the impact of frequent flyers. It said that 15% of passengers were responsible for about 70% of aircraft emissions (it said this in the context of frequent/regular flyers, rather than specifically due to e.g. disproportionate impact of long haul).
The fastest way to get to a zero carbon aircraft might just be for someone to invent video conferencing......
Wrt to CO2 and flying, I came across this recently, which allows you to calculate the CO2 footprint for a flight. Tried it for Economy return LHR<->JFK and Business class return, latter being almost 3 times the former. So, they believe you should apportion CO2 by square footage around the passenger. I think it would be more valid to apportion it by the weight of the passenger and their luggage.
(Was just watching the weather report on the BBC lunchtime - said May bank holiday 2018 was one of the hottest on record, whereas this year's looked like being one of the coldest. Ah, global warming ). "needs more research" as they say, but I think as an approximation they are more right, and the bolded is more wrong.
There are several issues going on here: a) drag is overcome by thrust. Some of the drag is lift induced which inevitably is indirectly affected by total weight. But that isn't the whole element. b) perhaps most importantly, you have the fixed weight of the aircraft and its crew, and its fuel (ok, that isn't actually fixed but there is a fixed element due to fixed weight and flight distance)
"The majority of a flight’s total weight is the aircraft itself and the fuel it carries. Flight crew, crew luggage, steward’s supplies, etc. are all considered part of aircraft weight."
So in a table I was looking at, for an A320 configured with 168 passengers, the maximum total passenger weight (using industry norms) was 22.3% of the total maximum takeoff weight (obviously shorter the flight the higher the precentage that would become - fuel.....).
But the point is that the weight of the passengers and their luggage (payload) while not marginal are certainly not proportional. And therefore treating 3 passengers in cattle class is equivalent to 1 in celebrity class is likely to be a better approximation than treating them as equal.
Plus just think of all those bottles of champers you can ditch ...
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on May 2, 2019 13:24:15 GMT
Just to back up m numbers drom last night
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world's volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide.
Dwarfed
clearly this thread is getting too long:
As I started typing yesterday but then gave up. Clearly the person who came up with the 'one large eruption' was standing on his head; he certainly had the ratios upside down.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2019 13:46:33 GMT
too long? How long does it have to be to ensure survival? :-)
"(Was just watching the weather report on the BBC lunchtime - said May bank holiday 2018 was one of the hottest on record, whereas this year's looked like being one of the coldest. Ah, global warming )."
maybe I didn't mention Weather is not Climate
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on May 2, 2019 13:48:58 GMT
Wrt to CO2 and flying, I came across this recently, which allows you to calculate the CO2 footprint for a flight. Tried it for Economy return LHR<->JFK and Business class return, latter being almost 3 times the former. So, they believe you should apportion CO2 by square footage around the passenger. I think it would be more valid to apportion it by the weight of the passenger and their luggage. As a concept, it's as good a generality as any. Fill the plane with cattleclass. You get 300 people in. Divide flight CO2 by 300. Fill the plane with business. You get 120 people in. Divide flight CO2 by 120. Fill the plane with first. You get 75 people in. Divide flight CO2 by 75. Fair point, but that's not how planes are configured, they're more like 300 economy, 50 business. So fill that plane with 300 economy, 40 business, 10 empty, use that calculator to determine the CO2 cost. Somebody says "but business class isn't full, let's give 10 economy passengers a free upgrade", calculate the CO2 cost, now higher but the plane's emissions are unchanged. Only going to make a real difference if/when airlines fail to sell business class seats, in which case they'll reconfigure the plane with more economy, fewer business class.
Regardless of all that, people playing with figures isn't going to stop people flying (definitely not long haul where there's no alternative short of not going, just possibly short haul). If they sell flights, people will buy them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2019 13:52:56 GMT
This pdf may be interesting
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,014
Likes: 5,142
|
Post by adrianc on May 2, 2019 14:43:30 GMT
Going through the carbon footprint calculator cb25 linked to... www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspxA single return flight to the Caribbean is about the same amount of CO2 as our 200m2 17th century house's electricity and bulk LPG consumption for the year. Unfortunately, I think it all went a bit pear-shaped later on. Apparently, our food consumption is about the same CO2 as both of those put together... <scratches head> |
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,043
Likes: 4,437
Member is Online
|
Post by agent69 on May 2, 2019 16:05:22 GMT
Latest poll on Sky news:
55% of people would not reduce the amount they fly to help climate change
|
|
).
