TO- FLY-OR- NOT ?

Reducing Carbon Emissions - To Fly or Drive? (or not eat meat?)

There is growing concern about the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted by airplanes and its contribution to global warming. I hear statements to the effect that one return flight from London to Los Angeles produces as much CO2 per passenger as driving a car for six months. As a result, some people are buying carbon offsets along with their plane tickets, others are reducing their air travel, or even stopping flying completely. All these are positive steps in the right direction. But I also hear of people who, concerned about global warming, decide to drive rather than fly. It turns out this is not necessarily any better.

To see why, let's look at some figures:

A modern jet, such as an Airbus A341 consumes 22,000 lb of fuel on a flight of 2100 miles, and carries a full load of 120 passengers.

Converting to metric units, that is 10,000 kg of fuel for 3460 km, per passenger.

Aviation fuel has a density of around 0.8 g/cc, so 1 kg of fuel is about 1.25 litre. The fuel consumption then works out to 1.9 litres per passenger per 100 km. (That is about 140 miles per gallon (UK) or 113 miles per gallon (US)

Actual figures for a Toyota Prius are about 4.57 litres per 100 km (60 mpg UK, 47 mpg US). Conventional cars get less mileage, and SUVs a lot less.

So in terms of CO2 output, flying is more than twice as efficient per passenger than driving alone in a Prius! And many times more efficient than driving an SUV.

However, a second factor comes into play with flying. At high altitudes carbon dioxide has a greater warming effect. This is further compounded by the water vapor and nitrogen oxides emitted by jet aircraft, which also contribute to global warming. These factors increase the warming impact of flying by a factor of just under 2 (1.9).

Thus, overall, flying has about the same impact as a Prius, or small car. But still much better than an SUV.

What is critical is the distance travelled. And that is where flying takes its toll on the environment. Flying gives us the ability to travel vast distances—distances you would probably never consider driving. You can fly San Francisco to New York, just over 2.500 miles, in under six hours. Driving takes you a week.

Thus, we should not replace flying with driving. We need to reduce our long-distance travel. That is the culprit.

But if you do choose to fly... Pray that your flight be full.

blue line

Or... Offset your driving by becoming a vegetgarian!

Producing a kilogram of beef leads to the emission of greenhouse gases with a warming potential equivalent to 36.4 kilograms of carbon dioxide. That is about the same as driving the average European car for 250 kilometres. The production also consumes enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days. Animal Science Journal DOI: 10.1111/j.1740-0929.2007.00457.x).

Over two-thirds of the energy goes towards producing the animals' feed. The calculations did not include the impact of managing farm infrastructure and transporting the meat, so the total environmental load is even higher.

blue lineTO FLY OR NOT TO FLY . . . .THAT IS THE QUESTION ?. . . . I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER . . .BUT MAYBE IN THE ABOVE ARTICLE THERE MAY BE SOME CLUES . . . YOU'RE WELCOME.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NUCLEAR=WATER HOG

Image
The Association is asserting that the nearby Plymouth-based nuclear power plant has created a “killing zone” in Cape Cod Bay that not only affects the future health of the Jones River and its native species but the health of a wide variety of aquatic species, large and small, and the food they depend on to survive. The Watershed Association and Pilgrim Watch have jointly written to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) suggesting that the plant’s owner – Entergy Corporation – should not have its license to operate the Pilgrim nuclear power plant extended unless and until it upgrades the facility’s water cooling system. That license expires later this year, and Entergy has been engaged in a license renewal process for more than six years. The Association and Pilgrim Watch assert that the plant’s cooling system – which uses seawater to maintain safe temperatures at the plant – is discharging harmful pollution and potentially impacting endangered species and their hab
Read more

tar sands protest,washington dc

post she wrote about visiting her native Alberta, where she saw the tar sands up close. She explains a bit about why this kind of individual outreach is so important: "A week after I visited the Canadian Tar Sands “to see for myself” what that area is all about, I received emails from several of my friends and colleagues, encouraging me to join them in Washington, DC for a "peaceful protest" against the proposed pipeline that would carry tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada to Texas… I am signed up for a Tar Sands protest at the White House in Washington, DC that has the potential to get the protesters arrested. Do I feel this cause is important enough to take these risks? YES I do. I hope my kids will be proud of me, and that it builds on my legacy and actions to try to raise awareness to the growing reality of climate change that is threatening my children’s future and mine. I want to WAKE UP my neighbors, friends, colleagues and total strangers by showing them that a mo
Read more

WALMART UN-PATRIOTIC

The battle between as the world's largest retailer and those who oppose it constructing a new store on the site of one of the Civil War's largest and most important battles continues. DCist music editor Amanda Mattos reports that a letter signed by some 250 scholars, from Ken Burns to David McCullough, puts Wal-Mart on notice: "The Wilderness is an indelible part of our history, its very ground hallowed by the American blood spilled there, and it cannot be moved." In December, the company prepared to submit an application for a special-use permit to construct a store on a portion of the battlefield, which is part of Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania National Military Park. As Mattos notes, the Battle of the Wilderness was the first battle between Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee. It cost 4,000 soldiers their lives and wounded 20,000 others and started the final push towards the end of the war. . . . . .IN SPITE OF THEIR SOMETIMES CHEAP PRICES WALMART DOES A LOT OF
Read more