George Monbiot on Flying is Dying

I think this is one of the most misguided memes to come out from greens in a long time.

Let's start with some basic facts.

In the United States, air transportation (including freight( accounts for less than 10% of transportation energy use, and about 2% of total energy use.

Jet fuel puts out less CO2 per unit of energy than coal, diesel, and many other fossil fuels -- meaning, the greenhouse has contribution relative to energy use is lower than many other uses.

From what I understand, water vapor, though having more global warming potential than CO2, dissipates from within days, whereas it takes scores of years for CO2 to do so.

So, you could eliminate all air transportation and it wouldn't make much of a dent in human effects on climate change -- no matter what the growth scenario is.

Beyond these basic facts, there are developments not only in aviation fuels, but in high-speed modes (like maglev PRT) which could readily substitute for much of air transportation. So the author is wrong in asserting that a commitment to dealing with climate change is incompatible with high-speed movement.

My final objection is that air travel has no ready, present-day substitutes for trans-oceanic and other forms of long-distance travel. Some countries have high-speed rail, but it's not common. And rail can't cross vast oceans.

In a day and age when people should be understanding anf exploring the world, and getting beyond all sorts of divisive, nationalistic garbage, I am abhorred at people who are basically proposing to cut all that out because they don't like rich posers out living a globe-trotting lifestyle.

And since the proposition itself will never be adopted (at least before there are realistic substitutes for the mode, and even then it won't solve trans-oceanic movement), it just ends up making greens look like luddites who want to make the world take steps backwards from technological progress and enjoying life.

Very good response but its a lot more fun to complain about it, no?

I'd love to see a "slow travel" movement to accompany the slow food movement. Slower is sexier!

"Let's start with some basic facts.
In the United States, air transportation (including freight( accounts for less than 10% of transportation energy use,
and about 2% of total energy use."

hummer driving accounts for a fraction of a percentage of transportation use - much less than e.g. corolla driving, since there are so few hummers and so many corollas. Applying your style of argumentation, this would make corollas bad and hummers good...

"Jet fuel puts out less CO2 per unit of energy than coal, diesel, and many other fossil fuels -- meaning, the greenhouse
has contribution relative to energy use is lower than many other uses."

this is flat out incorrect. jet fuel is chemically similar to diesel and produces just about the same amount of co2 per unit of energy. that said, since the jet engine is fairly inefficient in using that energy compared to a conventional diesel fueled combustion engine, the amount of co2 per unit of distance traveled will be significantly HIGHER with a jet engine than with e.g. a dieselpowered turboprop plane.

"So, you could eliminate all air transportation and it wouldn't make much of a dent in human effects on climate change --
no matter what the growth scenario is."

Wrong. The biggest problem is not our current emissions, but our forcasted future emissions. With the rapidly increased amount of air travel, this WILL be a major factor unless something is done. Also, it is simply not realistic to expect
people to stop driving to work, at least not over night. Skipping that 4 hour flight to disneyland is on the other hand doable.

Finally, flying has its applications where it is necessary and realisticly cannot be substituted for other means of transportation. But such flights does not have to be undertaken in the average jet which was typically built in the seventies(!), but in a modern turbo-prop aircraft which is slightly slower but cuts the emissions into a fraction.

While air travel by civilian jet-setters and business people makes a small but significant contribution to greenhouse gases, it's likely that U.S. military aviation is an even more serious culprit.

i'm pretty sure that official data on U.S. military fuel use, etc., is not public and may be "classified". But does anybody know what information, including informed guesses, might be available?

incidentally, the total elimination of U.S. military aviation would be a benefit to the world in other ways, such as a decrease in the number of people having bombs dropped on their heads.

There are plenty of accurate studies to show that jet aviation has a very negative impact on the environment. Last I read it seems that it contributed more like 15% to our CO2 problem. But that said - it's not only the jet travel but the attitude that comes with it. The attitude being "why shouldn't I be allowed to have my fun and go where I want?"

If everyone would simply sacrifice *some* of their travel - by air, car, and other CO2 producing means it would certainly help a great deal - as would reducing the amount of meat you eat since ranching is a big contributor to CO2 problems as well.

I see the same "distant" look from my friends when I bring up the ills of flying. And it's not just the CO2 problem either - jet fuel is one of the most toxic substances around and the people living near airports suffer the consequences of increased cancer, heart disease and other immune system illnesses directly related to this pollution.

How many million people a year must we lost to pollution before we are willing to admit it's not just about global warming?

The forecast growth in aviation and the multiplier effect are two significant problems with aviation. Aviation might make modest improvements in efficiency, cut luggage limits, reduce space in first class, remove in flight meals kitchen areas but beyond that there is not much it can do as far as I can see. Add solar panels on top for some of the electronics, air conditioning and heating?

I think the increase cost in fuel in the next few years will see more people going on travel light train-bike tours than fly-drive holidays. It will squeeze out the budget airlines and force them to make limits per person.

Go slow is the way forward.