If you talking absolute quantities of CO2 probably not, however, on a per person per trip basis significantly more fuel is expended for flight than for driving (until, as I mentioned earlier, you get into extreme distances or if you have very large capacity aircraft)
In theory you should be able to burn biodiesel in a jet engine, although neither the current biodiesel nor the aircraft engines are optimized for that particular combination.
Brazil is the leader in alcohol-fueled airplanes, but I believe theirs are piston-driven, not jets.
So it’s not inconceivable that you could use non-petrochemical fuels for long distance air travel. However, all such fuels to date contain less usable energy per unit, so it would be necessary to carry more units of fuel to make the same trip. This effectively reduces the useful range of the aircraft in question. Either you have to install larger fuel tanks, reduce the passenger/cargo portion of the payload, or both. At present, using petrochemical fuel is still the most economical option. If petrochemical fuels are no longer available, however, that will obviously change.
Eh, I wouldn’t count business decisions as counting towards individual lifestyle changes. Perhaps I should have gone specifically with “quality of life” to begin with, but so long as you now get the thrust of my point, it’s not a particular loss. Either way, that was my intent.
And no, I wouldn’t say that people would go ahead with the sorts of things that are good for AGW if they were really good. Arguments over AGW have little to do with reality. Point in fact, I’d personally say that it’s mindlessly silly to pass any legislation to fight global warming. But, that all of the suggestions should still be put through just because hey, newer, better, cleaner technology! Giving the infrastructure an enema every other decade or so really isn’t all that bad.
Yet most people spend more of their waking hours at work than anywhere else. So that seems like an unusual exemption. For example you are saying that if a law forced a contractor to use electric tools rather than petrol powered ones, and that meant that he worked longer hours, worked physically harder, suffered more injuries, spent less time with his kids and earned less money, that he would still have exactly the same quality of life becuase those are business decisions.
I couldn’t agree with such arbitrary exclusions to what counts as quality of life.
I’m not making that argument. I;m simply saying that if our hypothetical contractor is currently using petrol tools he is probably doing so because he wants to. If you pass a law that forces hi to use electric tools, regardless of what effect that has, you have by definition reduced his quality of life. He has less liberty, fewer choices. Saying that doesn’t count because it only affects the 10 hours a day he spends at work simply doesn’t cut it.
I would argue that it really is all that bad. But that is another thread.
You lose the argument. Morality is rational. In fact, rationality is the basis for morality. Or can you provide cites to back up your assertion that morality isn’t rational?
There is a difference between telling people to get rid of cars and light bulbs and motivating them to change to more efficient cars and light bulbs. The former just ain’t gonna happen in the real world. The latter, however, not only reduces carbon footprint, it’s cheaper for the consumer to run those items. This means people who might not give a damn, or even believe in global warming, might well change their behavior because it saves them money. In other words, it not only appeals to doing the right thing, it also appeals to personal greed. A win-win in many scenarios.
So… this whole flying business. People are going to keep flying because it’s just so darn useful - vastly reduced travel times, safety, access to all continents. Really, it’s just too useful to do away with. So… move to more efficient aircraft. Jet engines have become more efficient than they were a couple decades ago, and emit less crap and CO2, not because the airline industry is moral or concerned about carbon footprint (it’s not and it doesn’t) but because it saves money. And really, that’s the only way you’re going to get people on board with the reduce/reuse/recycle meme of conservation, ecology, and solving environmental problems like global warming. Convince them it will save them money or make them money.
A deposit on beverage cans doesn’t make recycling aluminum more efficient - what it does do is help keep litter off the streets because suddenly discarded cans have value and a certain segment of the population uses that fact to make some money.
Um… back to flying. OK, the airlines themselves have made improvements. Never mind it’s greed motivated, one of the effects is less greenhouse gas being spewed out of the engines. And the name of the game is to reduce emissions as, practically speaking, you aren’t going to eliminate them. Traveling first class on an airline is going to emit less crap per person per unit of travel than a private jet due to economy of scale and slower speed (airlines try to fly at an efficient speed, balancing speed with fuel burn and ideally optimizing profits while minimizing costs - private jets normally travel faster, which is less efficient in fuel and because more fuel is burned emits more greenhouse gas per person per unit of travel). So, if the choices are private jet vs. first class airliner then first class really is less hypocritical in this case than private jet. It’s not as good as coach, but it’s not the worst of all worlds. Also, one must consider the time spent traveling, the size of the human being (Mr. Gore is fairly tall), and possible health issues. It doesn’t do any good to travel in coach for 12 hours if at the end of it you expire from deep vein thrombosis because you couldn’t even shift around those 12 hours.
So I’m less offended by Mr. Gore traveling first class to Europe on airline than some, I guess. Might have been happier if he’d gone coach, but frankly, expecting him to either not go at all or to go by means other than flight would have been ridiculous.
Let’s look at the actual proposals that have been made, for legislation:
Move to alternate energy sources both on the national infrastructure and portable motor front. Develop oil-independence.
New coal energy plants need to capture CO2 emissions.
Design buildings that are more energy efficient, retrofit older buildings as possible.
Increase the energy efficiency requirements of new electronics. (E.g. try to phase out incandescent lights.)
Update the national power grid to be more efficient.
Work with developing nations to get them on the newest, cleanest technologies as they come up.
And yeah, now you’ll say that we’ll have to spend more money for that, etc. So let me just quote myself from the old thread where I brought this list up:
But of course. Still do. One of my closest friends is a strict vegan and we have fun with her all the time. “Hey; you get liver flukes. Do you get to treat them?”
This is beyond stupid, although it nicely demonstrates the propensity of alarmists to be overly sensitive in the hope that exaggeration will distract from the point of whether or not an Alarmist position requires change X in personal behaviour. We are all Believers in theory. What does it mean to practice your belief?
This thread is neither about Mr Gore nor about AGW being an incorrect hypothesis. It is about the following issue:
If one accepts AGW as a critical issue requiring immediate correction (I am using the term Alarmist as shorthand for that), then is it defensible to engage in personal behaviours which promote it unnecessarily? I choose flying first class as an index case; feel free to substitute a large house, new golf clubs or a big car.
The world is heating from anthropogenic CO2 tipping the climate balance. Fine. May I continue my profligate ways since my individual vote for behavioural change will affect only me and not save the world? And for the Alarmists here who think not–who do not see a connection between some sort of general AGW philosophy and personal behaviour–why not?
If I may bring in the Mahatma instead of Mr Gore: I must be the change I want to see in the world.
One more quick thing…I realize for those who Believe, attacking Mr Gore is like attacking the Pope in front a devout Catholic (another parallel of AGW alarmists and religion…) but I am much more interested in the broader question of what is personally required from AGW alarmists in terms of personal behavioural change which, by itself, will not effect a significant difference on the future of the world even if AGW is absolutely correct.
I would be happy to mock Mr Gore elsewhere, but that is not the purpose of my particular question, and I apologize for stepping on the sensitivities of those who hold him in high esteem.
Of course, rather than speculate on the difference between first class and coach, you could actually try to figure it out.
I did exactly that for a blog post I made about 8 years ago. Here’s the analysis:
In other words, choosing to fly one trip in first class instead of coach would cause your carbon footprint to be as big as the difference between driving 6000 miles in a typical SUV vs driving 6000 miles in a typical small car.
So let’s say you’re one of the hoi polloi, flying to the upcoming Copenhagen conference on global warming. If you’re flying from New York, your round drip will be 7,712 miles. If you flew coach, you’d be responsible for burning 129 gallons of gas if you lfew in a 767. If you fly first class, you’re responsible for burning about 386 gallons of gas.
The difference, 257 gallons, is the equivalent of driving a typical SUV about 5,400 miles.
So you’re burning an extra 257 gallons of gas just so you can have a little more elbow and leg room, you earth-raping bastard.
Oh, and the argument that the first-class seats are already there is irrelevant. That gas-hogging SUV sitting on the car lot is already there too, and if you buy a Prius instead, someone else will buy the SUV. I hope you can spot the fault in that logic (i.e. if you could convince all the rich and famous to stop flying first-class, they’d make more airplanes with efficient cattle car seating).
But this pales in comparison to Al Gore’s profligacy. Al Gore tends to travel in a Gulfstream IV. A Gulfstream IV burns about 5000 lbs of fuel in the first hour of flight, and 3000 lbs of fuel per hour at cruise altitude. Nashville is 4523 miles from Copenhagen. So Gore’s round trip will be about 9,000 miles. That’ 16 hours of cruise X 3000 lbs, plus 2 hours of climb at 5,000 lbs. Al Gore will therefore burn about 58,000 pounds of jet fuel to travel to the Copenhagen conference. At 6.75 lbs/gal, that’s about 8600 gallons of jet fuel Gore will burn.
Jet fuel when burned in air creates about 21 lbs of carbon dioxide per gallon. So Al Gore’s trip to Copenhagen will spew about 181,000 lbs of CO2 into the air, or about 90 tons.
The C02 footprint per capita is about 20 tons per year. That includes not just the CO2 the average person emits in driving, heating the house, etc, but the CO2 used to make the goods they buy, the food they eat, etc. One trip to Copenhagen by Al Gore then emits as much C02 as 4.5 Americans do in an entire year.
Or for fun, let’s compare it to owning a light truck vs a car. Gasoline creates about 19 lbs of C02 per gallon. So Al Gore’s trip to Copenhagen is the C02 emitting equivalent of burning 9,526 gallons of gasoline.
A light truck at the CAFE limit burned 4.76 gallons per 100 miles. A passenger car at the CAFE limit burns 3.7 gallons per 100 miles. A Prius burns about 2 gallons per 100 miles.
So how many people would we have to convince to buy a Prius instead of an SUV in order to save back the CO2 Gore burns in one trip? If a person sells an SUV and buys a Prius, he’ll save about 2.76 gallons per 100 miles. The average miles driven per year is about 12,000 in the US. So you can expect to save about 331 gallons of gas in a year by driving a Prius instead of an SUV.
Therefore, about 30 people will have to drive Priuses for a year instead of SUVs, just to save back the carbon Al Gore burned on one trip to Copenhagen.
Al Gore probably makes 20 trips a year or more in a private jet. Think about that. And he could easily fly coach - most people wouldn’t want to sit near him anyway.
And don’t get me started on his house. Al Gore is one of the biggest hypocrites I’ve ever seen.
Religion is believed for no reason. AGW is believed because the vast majority of climate scientists find the evidence for it compelling. Not believing in AGW is akin to religion. Deciding to believe things based on ignorance and personal preference.
We should all make painless changes when possible. Traveling to support a book or movie that informs people about the dangers we’re facing is not only necessary, it is a huge value. As my disposal of Blake’s ignorant argument showed, flying (with carbon credits) is well worth getting the word out to hundreds of millions of Americans.
Lacking a more substantive, intelligent argument against his actions I certainly can see that.
I don’t personally fawn over him, but I do find it distasteful how global warming deniers are so bereft of worthwhile arguments.
It works both ways. I get annoyed that the people advocated expensive and radical reductions in CO2 won’t engage in the larger debates about the best course of action, choosing instead to attack the ‘global warming deniers’ who are easy targets.
Right, because it’s so hard to get a flight from New York to LA, Austin or Chicago to promote your book. :rolleyes: I guess that there are flights to LA leaving every 5 minutes from New York are just not at close enough intervals. He just HAS to fly in a private jet, because of course every New York Times bestselling author only flies in private jets too.
Or you could simply organize your tour to accomodate a greener method of travel.
Carbon Offsets are evil, pure and simple. Reduction is the only way, buying a piece of desert to offset your pollution per acre is absolutely disgusting behavior.
Yes, and that would be scheduling your dates around your travel schedule so that you don’t miss any of them. :rolleyes: You know, like every other business person on the planet who doesn’t have a private jet. You only miss your dates if your publicist doesn’t know how to schedule things properly.
‘It doesn’t matter what my carbon footprint is! I’m spreading awareness!’
It’d be interesting if you could quantify how much celebrity excess is justified under the mantle of ‘spreading awareness’.
The reason first class exists from the point of view of the airline is because they make a high proportion of that flight’s income from first class. A first class seat is about 1.5 times the footprint of a coach one, meanwhile it typically costs three times as much. It doesn’t increase the carbon footprint to ride first class because the flight has first class and is going to be flying anyway, so which seat you sit in makes no difference at all.
And that SUV sitting on the lot is going to be sold to someone, so you might as well buy it and drive it, right? Same logic.
The point is, if Al Gore and the other Hollywood nitwits starting guilting people out of first class the same way they try to guilt people out of SUVs, then fewer people would fly first class, and the airlines would configure fewer of their planes that way, or at least make the first class sections smaller, which would allow them to fly more people on the same amount of fuel.
But Hollywood and Al Gore and the rest don’t shame first-class flying, because that’s what THEY do. They’re all about trying to eliminate the bad habits other people have, not their own. The rules are always for the masses, never for the elites who make them. And when they do put on a show of frugality like the current trend for hollywood stars to drive Priuses, it’s just for show. They’ll drive them straight up to their 100 ft yachts and burn up all the carbon they saved just manoevering away from the dock.
Ya know, if someone believes the scientists on global warming the last thing that person should be worrying about is whether Al Gore flies first class. Talk about not seeing the forest through the trees.
What’s the important part of this debate? Is it, Al Gore doesn’t live in a cave and send out telepathic messages about AGW, therefore…
a) AGW doesn’t exist.
b) AGW exists but Al Gore is an ‘alarmist’ and we have plenty of time drill baby drill.
c) AGW exists but Al Gore’s flight travel is so much that we’d still have global warming no matter what we do.
d) AGW exists but I need someone to tell me what to do and Al Gore’s occasional flight travel makes me confused.
e) AGW exists but Al Gore’s hypocrisy has made me lose the will to save myself or my descendants.
f) it’s irrelevant whether AGW exists because Al Gore is killing me with his moralizing.
I’m sorry but this idea is too stupid for print. It’s not the same at all, for what should be obvious reasons. The plane is going to fly, and they couldn’t afford to fly it if it weren’t for the fact that they got 25% or more of their revenue from 10% of the seats. The plane has X number of seats, and the carbon footprint per seat is divided by X, a first class seat doesn’t require more fuel than the coach seat.
And then they would have 2.5% more seats at the expense of about 10% of lost revenue. Flying first class doesn’t increase the carbon footprint of the flight. Its carbon footprint is the same regardless. As it is airlines have trouble turning a profit as it is, if you take away first class it would be exceedingly difficult for them to turn a profit. When they are selling First class tickets for 1000 and Coach for 300 it’s pretty easy to understand the economics of it. Also, the space let by having fewer bags due to fewer passengers can be sold to parcel shipment thus mitigating any specious carbon footprint increase that was made.
I can’t express my honest views on this argument on this forum.
Yeah, I’d be happy to. Here’s what Snopes.com has to say:
Whoop-de-fricken’-do. So let’s give him credit for cutting his energy usage by 40%. That means he’s only using SEVEN times as much energy as his neighbors instead of twelve. What a saint.
This is like a guy driving a Hummer and then when being called on how wasteful it is, installing tires with less rolling resistance.
And of course, he could have made these changes years and years ago. He didn’t until he got caught and started taking a bunch of bad publicity. In the meantime, he’s still tooling around in his Gulfstream.
You know, there ARE environmentalists who walk the walk. Ed Begley Junior lives in a modest home and has a very small carbon footprint. So does Ralph Nader. Kudos to them.
If Gore really wanted to save the planet, he’d realize that his own hypocrisy is a major force in blunting his message, and he’d change his lifestyle. But he doesn’t, because what Al Gore is really about is becoming the world’s first Carbon Billionaire.
I believe Al Gore is a net negative for the environmental movement. He’s a big, fat, easy target for anti-global warming people. You guys should boo this self-serving clown off the stage, not hold him up as your prophet.
