Spirit Airlines has announced it is going out of business after 34 years. The ultra-low-cost airline known for its bright yellow planes and deep discount fares said Saturday it has started winding down operations.
Every source I’ve ever looked at has flights pegged as the most polluting form of passenger travel. Plus the pollutants are deposited directly into the upper atmosphere, which no coal rolling asshole in a dually can ever accomplish. That further magnifies their impact. I’d interested in where you’ve drawn your conclusion from.
A single plane emits a lot, but if you are not using a private jet - it enjoys the same benefit as other forms of ‘public transport’: emissions are shared among multiple passengers. Especially if you are in economy, in a packed plane there are a lot of people to correct for that.
Furthermore, emissions for planes are far from uniform for the distance travelled: a disproportionate amount of emissions occurs as take-off.
A short or long haul flight is more efficient than an ICE car [source]. This concerns efficiency though - not total emissions - so if you use a car, but travel a shorter distance, emissions will still be less. Also, this source is from 2023, things will probably have shifted around a bit.
The elephant in the room is obviously the “domestic flight” emissions number sitting proudly at the top of the list. Based on the average length of a UK domestic flight and this source, that’s 20% of all global commercial flights, and just under 50% are under 500 nautical miles/926km, which is still on the highly inefficient end of the spectrum. But then you realize that it only accounts for about 42 million weekly seats when estimates are much closer to 100 million, then you realize it’s 2009 data and you don’t want to deal with this rabbit hole…
That second chart you provided is… tantalizing, and just like my own source I’d much rather have access to the data than the charts they’ve made with it, because napkin math based on their red line falls shy of any sort of accuracy.
If we just rely on the provided numbers, new European internal combustion vehicles are way more efficient than short and long haul flights (cars’ grams of CO2/km should should be divided by ~1.5, which is the US/EUR average vehicle occupancy rate), and the average is dragged down by older ICE cars. New U.S vehicles lose the efficiency battle comically and are about as bad as ultra short haul business flights, lmao. Thanks for the link.
I can’t seem to find the post that had the chart because Lemmy’s search function is ass, but I found this one that’s similar:
The one I was thinking of listed different types of rail, and a couple of them were more polluting than airliners.
Don’t get me wrong, I love trains and most of them are among the lowest-emitting options. But the notion that commercial airlines are the most polluting seems to be a misconception on a per-passenger basis. Private jets, maybe, because they have fewer passengers.
Lemmy’s search function is disappointing, yeah. Carrying on a long tradition of worthless forum search functions I suppose. I envisioned a world where everybody adopted Google’s late 2000s-early ‘10s algorithm but instead even Google has sworn off of it.
I replied to the other comment first because I can’t actually get your media to load. What domain is this? I think it’s an issue with my client because I encounter this frequently in a few communities.
Yes, American rail in particular is… bad. I think the romance of the notion of rail transit is doing a lot of the heavy lifting stateside. So are the new ICE cars, as I stated in my other reply. The new European and Asian models on the other hand should be winning out on efficiency easily, as would their trains, and all hybrids and EVs. Air travel may rank decently in carbon efficiency in the U.S., but I don’t think that remains true elsewhere, where transit industries have been allowed/incentivized/required to improve.
It’s not the original one I was thinking of, but it’s similar. Also, I ignored short haul flights because who the fuck flies somewhere they can take a bus to in less than a day?
A lot of people! Check out the flight distance distribution charted here. (old, 2009-ish data) Big part of the problem. Having to be “on” the whole time while you’re driving isn’t freedom, it sucks. It’s why people want trains. And in their absence they fly.
Okay please point out all these high speed rail projects happening around the country. AFAIK there’s only one in SoCal and its been delayed for years and several orders of magnitude over budget. You people act like its just a matter of snapping your fingers and we suddenly have a high speed rail network, walkable cities, and no need for cars or airplanes.
I’m not opposed to any of this but we’re just as likely to get transporter technology to rid ourselves of cars. Don’t get mad at me for bringing you guys back down to earth.
I mean it’s not like I think trains come from magic. The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now. If you never start, it will never exist.
Not in this country. It’s nearly impossible to get the land to make it possible. Then it’s the fact that large districts are far apart. The economics of rail are tough. You take a 4 hour flight, it becomes a 16 hour rail trip.
Because Big Oil doesn’t profit from high speed trains, since those trains don’t run on fossil fuels (at least not directly). And everyone knows Big Oil rules the US in truth. Every president is just more or less a puppet from them.
The USSR was a lot bigger, less dense, and less developed. They managed rail.
As far as eminent domain goes, half our cities are parking lot and road. You can also simply elevate the rail. Or you can do what the chinese do and not build the station in the city center and instead run subways connecting the rail stations everywhere. IMO this is worse than building the train station near downtown.
Since when do the Chinese build stations outside of the city? I can pick from any 4 stations all centrally located in Shanghai, and get off the train after 4 hours in the heart of Beijing and be in my hotel in 15 minutes.
The same goes for any city.
Chinese build airports outside of the city.
If I would do the same trip with flights, I need travel 1 hour to the airport, be there 1 hour before, 2 hour flight, land 1 hour outside of Beijing. That’s 5 hours if all goes smooth. This is why high speed rail is the preferred option to travel. Especially if you can afford business class.
There’s nothing wrong with travel. It’s airplane emissions that’s the problem
Its billionaires emissions that are the problem…
what do you mean? just because there were like 200 private aeroplanes at some billionaire’s wedding, doesn’t mean the billionaires are at fault!
just in case
/s
Per passenger per mile, the emissions are less than cars and ships…
Every source I’ve ever looked at has flights pegged as the most polluting form of passenger travel. Plus the pollutants are deposited directly into the upper atmosphere, which no coal rolling asshole in a dually can ever accomplish. That further magnifies their impact. I’d interested in where you’ve drawn your conclusion from.
A single plane emits a lot, but if you are not using a private jet - it enjoys the same benefit as other forms of ‘public transport’: emissions are shared among multiple passengers. Especially if you are in economy, in a packed plane there are a lot of people to correct for that.
Furthermore, emissions for planes are far from uniform for the distance travelled: a disproportionate amount of emissions occurs as take-off.
A short or long haul flight is more efficient than an ICE car [source]. This concerns efficiency though - not total emissions - so if you use a car, but travel a shorter distance, emissions will still be less. Also, this source is from 2023, things will probably have shifted around a bit.
The elephant in the room is obviously the “domestic flight” emissions number sitting proudly at the top of the list. Based on the average length of a UK domestic flight and this source, that’s 20% of all global commercial flights, and just under 50% are under 500 nautical miles/926km, which is still on the highly inefficient end of the spectrum. But then you realize that it only accounts for about 42 million weekly seats when estimates are much closer to 100 million, then you realize it’s 2009 data and you don’t want to deal with this rabbit hole…
That second chart you provided is… tantalizing, and just like my own source I’d much rather have access to the data than the charts they’ve made with it, because napkin math based on their red line falls shy of any sort of accuracy.
If we just rely on the provided numbers, new European internal combustion vehicles are way more efficient than short and long haul flights (cars’ grams of CO2/km should should be divided by ~1.5, which is the US/EUR average vehicle occupancy rate), and the average is dragged down by older ICE cars. New U.S vehicles lose the efficiency battle comically and are about as bad as ultra short haul business flights, lmao. Thanks for the link.
I can’t seem to find the post that had the chart because Lemmy’s search function is ass, but I found this one that’s similar:
The one I was thinking of listed different types of rail, and a couple of them were more polluting than airliners.
Don’t get me wrong, I love trains and most of them are among the lowest-emitting options. But the notion that commercial airlines are the most polluting seems to be a misconception on a per-passenger basis. Private jets, maybe, because they have fewer passengers.
Lemmy’s search function is disappointing, yeah. Carrying on a long tradition of worthless forum search functions I suppose. I envisioned a world where everybody adopted Google’s late 2000s-early ‘10s algorithm but instead even Google has sworn off of it.
I replied to the other comment first because I can’t actually get your media to load. What domain is this? I think it’s an issue with my client because I encounter this frequently in a few communities.
Yes, American rail in particular is… bad. I think the romance of the notion of rail transit is doing a lot of the heavy lifting stateside. So are the new ICE cars, as I stated in my other reply. The new European and Asian models on the other hand should be winning out on efficiency easily, as would their trains, and all hybrids and EVs. Air travel may rank decently in carbon efficiency in the U.S., but I don’t think that remains true elsewhere, where transit industries have been allowed/incentivized/required to improve.
Ah fuck, on second glance it won’t load on my end either. I just copied the link from this post:
https://sopuli.xyz/comment/22812246
It’s not the original one I was thinking of, but it’s similar. Also, I ignored short haul flights because who the fuck flies somewhere they can take a bus to in less than a day?
A lot of people! Check out the flight distance distribution charted here. (old, 2009-ish data) Big part of the problem. Having to be “on” the whole time while you’re driving isn’t freedom, it sucks. It’s why people want trains. And in their absence they fly.
That problem is already solved in most places by having trains and bus routes.
Yeah… and still short and ultra short haul flights are extremely common.
What’s the alternative though? High speed rail would be nice, but since that won’t happen, you’d just have all those people driving cars instead.
What’s the alternative?
Names existing, tried and tested alternative that has been working well for 200 years
Naw, can’t do that, it’d be hard.
(This is you)
Id love to see a bullet train from LA to Tokyo
Okay please point out all these high speed rail projects happening around the country. AFAIK there’s only one in SoCal and its been delayed for years and several orders of magnitude over budget. You people act like its just a matter of snapping your fingers and we suddenly have a high speed rail network, walkable cities, and no need for cars or airplanes.
I’m not opposed to any of this but we’re just as likely to get transporter technology to rid ourselves of cars. Don’t get mad at me for bringing you guys back down to earth.
I mean it’s not like I think trains come from magic. The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now. If you never start, it will never exist.
There’s one in Texas that seems to have high potential of actually happening.
https://www.texashsr.com/project/
Why won’t it happen? High speed rail is a mature proven technology
Not in this country. It’s nearly impossible to get the land to make it possible. Then it’s the fact that large districts are far apart. The economics of rail are tough. You take a 4 hour flight, it becomes a 16 hour rail trip.
Because Big Oil doesn’t profit from high speed trains, since those trains don’t run on fossil fuels (at least not directly). And everyone knows Big Oil rules the US in truth. Every president is just more or less a puppet from them.
Thankfully oil’s a dying industry now
Because there’s zero political will to do so, our nation is huge, and there’s no land to build this rail on without lots of eminent domain seizures.
The USSR was a lot bigger, less dense, and less developed. They managed rail.
As far as eminent domain goes, half our cities are parking lot and road. You can also simply elevate the rail. Or you can do what the chinese do and not build the station in the city center and instead run subways connecting the rail stations everywhere. IMO this is worse than building the train station near downtown.
Since when do the Chinese build stations outside of the city? I can pick from any 4 stations all centrally located in Shanghai, and get off the train after 4 hours in the heart of Beijing and be in my hotel in 15 minutes. The same goes for any city. Chinese build airports outside of the city. If I would do the same trip with flights, I need travel 1 hour to the airport, be there 1 hour before, 2 hour flight, land 1 hour outside of Beijing. That’s 5 hours if all goes smooth. This is why high speed rail is the preferred option to travel. Especially if you can afford business class.
Shanghai station is north of downtown, most HSR goes into Hongqiao anyway.
The communist agrarian country has less issues with eminent domain? You don’t say
China has 18 cities over 10 million and 113 over 1 million. You can look up stuck nail houses to see the issues they had with eminent domain.
It’s not that expensive to get people to agree to give up their homes if you’re building tons of new housing and can just give them that.
Like the ones they did for the border wall?
I know: Zeppelins.
The alternative is simply not going on a jaunt to Greece. It’s a luxury.