Then, where you take a petrol car or fly depends on the distance. Flying has a higher carbon footprint for journeys less than 1000 kilometers than a medium-sized car. For longer journeys, flying would actually have a slightly lower carbon footprint per kilometer than driving alone over the same distance.
In the context of the US, which is giant compared to driving across an EU nation, there’d be no reason to fly a distance less than 621 miles (1000km mentioned above) for the most part, neither from a time or distance perspective, about 8-9 hours driving at expressway speeds. The country is huge. Whenever I’ve flown, for example, it is at least 1200 miles (1900km) or more.
Also that ‘if I dont fly on this plane, someone else would’ argument, I hope you realise that its nonsense if you think about it for a second.
No, it isn’t, I didn’t say “someone else will.” I said the plane is going to fly whether you’re in that seat or not, as they’re used heavily for cargo transport. Airlines don’t just cancel major flight routes just because you’re not sitting on the plane, short-term anyway. Longer-term they would reduce flights if there’s consistent lack of passengers/cargo. So long-term it would have a more substantial impact, but if someone is mulling over a trip to see their family and fretting over carbon footprint of one person, that airplane will be traveling to that destination with or without that person being onboard.
The US is a great example of how not to do things, to be clear. Take that 1200 mile trip as an example. Train will take longer than car because Amtrak is so dysfunctional, if you can even get Amtrak to plot a route, or if they even have stops where you want. Car will pollute more than airplane, and take more time than airplane, and you have to plot hotel stays and refueling points, and possibly have enough drivers if you’re going to switch off drivers, if your car can even handle such a long trip. So airplane, it often is.
You seem to be gravely mistaken about how physics work and shouldnt act smug about stuff you dont understand. Flying a machine that weighs around 1t per passenger at 10km in the air is not more efficient than rolling on the ground, just because there are more people on the machine. Means of transportation have immense differences in efficiency, thats why ships are even more efficient than cars or trains.
The website you linked doesnt give real world values, which becomes obvious by this passage:
It’s the emission factors companies use to quantify and report their emissions.
Measuring avition emissions has never been easy and lobbyists have taken great advantage of that. Those are the absolute minimum values that could be proven beyond doubt, many years ago when studies around aviation emissions were just in the beginning. Actual emissions are way higher, which should have been obvious to you too if you had read the article instead of parotting capitist propaganda.
Please read up on the matter or at least stop suggesting that flying could be more efficient than driving, because flying is by faaaaaar the worst method of transportation you could choose.
Basic physics. Moving hundreds of people in one machine is almost always more efficient than hundreds of people moving in one machine per person.
https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint
In the context of the US, which is giant compared to driving across an EU nation, there’d be no reason to fly a distance less than 621 miles (1000km mentioned above) for the most part, neither from a time or distance perspective, about 8-9 hours driving at expressway speeds. The country is huge. Whenever I’ve flown, for example, it is at least 1200 miles (1900km) or more.
No, it isn’t, I didn’t say “someone else will.” I said the plane is going to fly whether you’re in that seat or not, as they’re used heavily for cargo transport. Airlines don’t just cancel major flight routes just because you’re not sitting on the plane, short-term anyway. Longer-term they would reduce flights if there’s consistent lack of passengers/cargo. So long-term it would have a more substantial impact, but if someone is mulling over a trip to see their family and fretting over carbon footprint of one person, that airplane will be traveling to that destination with or without that person being onboard.
The US is a great example of how not to do things, to be clear. Take that 1200 mile trip as an example. Train will take longer than car because Amtrak is so dysfunctional, if you can even get Amtrak to plot a route, or if they even have stops where you want. Car will pollute more than airplane, and take more time than airplane, and you have to plot hotel stays and refueling points, and possibly have enough drivers if you’re going to switch off drivers, if your car can even handle such a long trip. So airplane, it often is.
You seem to be gravely mistaken about how physics work and shouldnt act smug about stuff you dont understand. Flying a machine that weighs around 1t per passenger at 10km in the air is not more efficient than rolling on the ground, just because there are more people on the machine. Means of transportation have immense differences in efficiency, thats why ships are even more efficient than cars or trains.
The website you linked doesnt give real world values, which becomes obvious by this passage:
Measuring avition emissions has never been easy and lobbyists have taken great advantage of that. Those are the absolute minimum values that could be proven beyond doubt, many years ago when studies around aviation emissions were just in the beginning. Actual emissions are way higher, which should have been obvious to you too if you had read the article instead of parotting capitist propaganda.
Please read up on the matter or at least stop suggesting that flying could be more efficient than driving, because flying is by faaaaaar the worst method of transportation you could choose.