Scientist Rebellion
Is it possible to have carbon neutral flying? The answer is no. Air traffic is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions and is on the rise. Flying is the least efficient mode of transport, with higher emissions per passenger km than any other. (1/3) #ClimateCrisis #Green
Jan 9, 2023 at 12:08amWeb
Show threadScientist RebellionJan 9, 2023
Air travel is difficult to electrify due to the weight and energy constraints of batteries. Instead, the industry promotes carbon offsetting, which is just greenwashing and does not address the pollution caused by flying. (2/3)#CarbonOffsetting #EnvironmentalImpact Photo:Trac Vu
Show threadScientist RebellionJan 9, 2023
So what can we do? Reduce, or eliminate, your own flying. Banning private jets is also essential. It's time for the industry to be held responsible for the damage they cause and for strict emission standards and bans on luxury flights to be implemented. (3/3) #SustainableTravel
Show threadSaint PalermoJan 9, 2023

@ScientistRebellion

#banprivatejets #FlyLESS Much much less. Think of flying as “emergency only”. We’re destroying ourselves and taking everything we love with it. Flying is not worth that.

Show threadGeof Hughes 🖤Jan 9, 2023
@SaintPalermo @ScientistRebellion Is travelling by boat or ship any less polluting? Genuine Question.
Show threadGeof Hughes 🖤Jan 9, 2023
@SaintPalermo just found the answer to my own question: https://innovate-eco.com/are-cruise-ships-more-polluting-than-planes/
Are Cruise Ships More Polluting Than Planes? | Innovate Eco

The travel industry is one of the worst offenders to environmental pollution and projections show that it is likely to continue growing. Planes and cruise…

Innovate Eco
Show threadThomas LaferriereJan 9, 2023
@BogLoper @SaintPalermo the advantage of boats is that you can put a #sail on it, and it’s a lot more fun that way. Otherwise, for land based travel, #trains are pretty easy to electrify (no need for batteries since you can just put wires along the #rails ) and you can even have restaurants in there 🤤.
Show threadGeof Hughes 🖤Jan 9, 2023
@tlaferriere @SaintPalermo https://images.app.goo.gl/Fu7kUfcgEho1FKdE8
Google Image Result for https://images.pexels.com/photos/813011/pexels-photo-813011.jpeg?cs=srgb&dl=pexels-matthew-barra-813011.jpg&fm=jpg

Show threadGeof Hughes 🖤Jan 9, 2023
@tlaferriere @SaintPalermo I didn't mention trains as I used to work on the railways and prefer them as a mode of transport, except in the UK where they are overpriced and overcrowded. The question referred to ocean liners crossing seas, which are apparently more polluting per person than aircraft.
Show threadMilonguero cyclistaJan 9, 2023
@BogLoper @SaintPalermo @ScientistRebellion The point is ships can be made green, because they float passively. Aeroplanes are doomed to be energy wasters, as they need to go very fast in order to merely stay in the air.
Show threadGeof Hughes 🖤Jan 9, 2023
@Noordkaapfujin @SaintPalermo @ScientistRebellion Do you have any evidence as to how ships can be converted to run on green energy? There are many thousands of these floating around the world, mostly running on diesel. Passenger ships are in the minority compared to tankers, huge fishing trawlers and cargo ships.
Show threadMilonguero cyclistaJan 9, 2023

@BogLoper @SaintPalermo @ScientistRebellion Ships have been propelled by wind power for thousands of years. I've been on a large ferry between Norway and Sweden that's battery powered (with a diesel as back-up).

Point is, from basic physics follows that aeroplanes will always use a shitload of energy compared to water or land based vehicles. Because air is a gas with a density of just over 1 kg/m³.

Show threadGeof Hughes 🖤Jan 9, 2023
@Noordkaapfujin @SaintPalermo @ScientistRebellion So why is it that the article I read informs that, per person, ships are more polluting than aeroplanes? Can a huge container vessel be powered by batteries, or those sails you are so fond of? In this high speed world we live in, how many are willing, or able, to take days/weeks to cross the Atlantic when an aeroplane takes a few hours. Not sure why anyone would make that trip anyway when there's the internet, but I digress.
Show threadMilonguero cyclistaJan 9, 2023

@BogLoper @SaintPalermo @ScientistRebellion Well, because those in power simply don't care. Shipping fuel is dirt cheap and environmental regulations are lacking big time.

My argument is about what is possible given the will to build it. Green ships are possible, green aeroplanes not. Because water can give a static support to te vehicle, and air cannot.

Show threadGeof Hughes 🖤Jan 10, 2023
@Noordkaapfujin Given the will, a lot of things are possible. From Europe to China and right across Russia, trains could carry more people and a lot more freight, cutting down on millions of car and truck emissions, if the will were there.
Show threadLZVolkJan 9, 2023
@ScientistRebellion Better rail infrastructure?
Show threadKevin RussellJan 9, 2023

@ScientistRebellion
Its not perfect, but one airline has developed, installed and is converting their entire fleet to electric engines.

https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2021EMLI0068-002069

Harbour Air’s electric aircraft a high-flying example of research investment | BC Gov News

B.C.’s Harbour Air Seaplanes is building on its work in clean technology to decarbonize aviation and create new jobs with support from the CleanBC Go Electric Advanced Research and Commercialization (ARC) program.

Show threadBillJan 9, 2023
@ScientistRebellion What about liquid renewable fuels ? It was my understanding that several companies had liquid fuels suitable for aviation, which are created in a laboratory so to speak.
Show threadTrötifantJan 9, 2023

@bill

I'm afraid those fuels have a horrible efficiency factor and they are in competition with any other renewable energy source - of which we have currently much too less available anyway. So, number and lengts of flights must be drastically decreased and those flights (with regular planes) that are (let's say, democratically decided to be) unavoidable should be made with renewable fuels or other alternatives.

@ScientistRebellion

Show threadRand BarthelJan 9, 2023
@ScientistRebellion Not with the flight propulsion technologies we have today, certainly. We can't rule it out in the future, but for now we should get to work on alternatives like high speed rail and being willing to have long distance travel take longer.
Show threadMicahJan 9, 2023

@ScientistRebellion umm this is a bad policy idea.

1. There is no reason planes can’t be done on batteries in the not so distant future
2. Any designer of a policy should tax or ban the actual problem, not an ends (eg don’t ban people in the air, ban carbon emissions)
3. There are places there are not reachable by boat, car, or train by themselves, it’s far from clear that going from Nebraska to Paris by some mixture of non air transports is better than just flying

Show threadLeigh CallinanJan 9, 2023

@ScientistRebellion.

Flying from Sydney to Melbourne, the average CO2 emissions per person has been 185kg. The average vehicle, with only a driver, emits 237kg. Elias Visontay, Guardian, 100123

Show threadSteve MarquisJan 9, 2023

@ScientistRebellion

Some good testing going on in Orkney, UK on hybrid powered flight. The test facility is expecting to play host to other forms of low-carbon flights, including hydrogen and sustainable aviation fuels.

I do agree that flying is definately the poor relation but we do need to resolve it for lifeline services such as these where stormy waters regularly prevent ferry's from putting out to sea.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-58177865.amp

Scotland's first electric plane begins flights - BBC News

It is hoped the hybrid aircraft could pave the way for inter-island and short-haul flights with greener technologies.

BBC News