Aw, I'm feeling bad for wanting to go on holiday now. How many trees would I need to plant to offset the damage of flying fomr Manchester to Egypt?

Last time I checked the efficiency of airlines per passenger mile was pretty damn good. Better than driving and only slightly worse than an intercity bus. As fuel costs rise and airlines have to compete with low-cost carriers (and they've pretty much exhausted all of the concessions they can get out of their workers) look to see them get more fuel-efficient. Smaller planes with winglets, gate services to reduce idle time, etc.

The idea of rerouting air traffic to save fuel sounds short-sighted to me. Airlines generally want the planes in the air for as small a time as possible, and want to turn around a plane as quickly as possible to make more money. If they're not flying the most direct route currently, its for safety reasons.

High speed rail is still the most efficient form of travel, but unfortunately its barely availible in the US, and where it is it takes longer and is more expensive than flying.

"How many trees would I need to plant to offset the damage of flying from Manchester to Egypt?"

Go overland:
http://www.seat61.com/Egypt.htm
!

James,
assuming Carbonfund.org is a decent gauge, and a round trip of roughly 10,000 miles, you would require to offset 2.9 tonnes of direct emmissions, or 7.24 tonnes of Zero Carbon™ emmissons (total footprint).

"Last time I checked the efficiency of airlines per passenger mile was pretty damn good."

AFAIK, The problem with airplanes isn't only the quantity of fuel they burn, but the kind of emissions that are released and *where* they are released.

Not to mention that comparing "fuel efficiency by mile" for airplanes vs. other means of transportation can be misleading because few people will do as many miles by train, bus or car. Very often it is the availability of flying that makes people travel far, and if they couldn't fly they probably just wouldn't do the trip (they'd find another way to conduct business or a closer spot to go relax).

If only Easyjet and Ryanair hadn't started making flying 'more democratic' (ie. cheap as chips) then we wouldn't have got used to flying so often.

I think this is really the biggest challenge we face in the West in terms of being Green - giving up what you already have. "What you don't have, you don't miss" is the saying, but damn - people really resent giving things up once they've got 'em.

The overall weight of civilian aircraft travel on the CO2 picture is still rather light (about 2% of emissions). It is true that the altitude is a problem, as well as contrails.

Yet I'm not comfortable with discouraging travel. Our world is insular enough as it is. Though of course if you travel thousands of miles to a gated resort, it doesn't really matter where you go. And those resorts are usually very resource-intensive, with lots of A/C and golf-courses and so forth.

Also, some people have family far away. Not all travel is about leisure.

Also, high-speed rail is efficient once built, but what is the lifecycle cost of building the track, with thousands of tons of steel and concrete, plus earth moving, civil works, and so forth?

Aircraft efficiency has doubled in the past 30 years, and it should improve 20% or so in the next 20 years. New technology will improve routing, also saving time and fuel. For later, a switch to hydrogen is possible, but non CO2 hydrogen production would have to become available. For this to actually accomplish anything.

I doubt travel by ship is any more efficient. Probably much worse, in fact.

It's not an easy problem to solve, but on a global scale it is far from being a principal CO2 source. Really, it's the perfect problem for offsets at this point.

"Travel by ship not efficient" Well I'm sure sailboats are pretty green! (And some were even good enough to cross oceans and discover entire continents...)

And even if efficiency improves by 20%, as mentioned above that would be easily cancelled out by increasing demand.

I think this is more of a sustainable consumption issue. If cheap enough i'm sure we could all think of more reasons to fly places, but that doesn't mean we should.

True. Even a 20% efficiency improvement will be cancelled out by growth in India and China.

All I'm saying is that the industry has been increasing efficiency systematically since the late 1960's. Aircraft also last a very long time, so energy used for construction and materials tends towards insignificance, unlike other modes such as auto travel.

I agree that flying should not be especially cheap. Offsets would be a good way to put a premium on flying. Airports could also be made carbon-neutral; most have plenty of space for solar panel installations, and by definition they have clear sightlines so the sun is available all day long.

The thing is that flying is important in a connected world. Sailing is nice, but nobody is running Clipper ships across the Atlantic (which isn't to say there might not be a market for that, although a truly green ship has to solve a lot of other problems as well).

Yet flying under electric power is simply out of the question for the foreseeable future. Only hydrogen can replace kerosene, and "green" hydrogen is not yet available in any kind of industrial scale. So, in the mean time, the strategy should be to optimize efficiency by:

o Mandating offsets (which would also encourage that older, higher fuel burn airliners be retired or re-engined).
o Simplifying routes, as the current route-waypoint scheme was designed when computers did not yet exist.
o Increasing collateral efficiency, such as at airports and transport to airports.
o Maintaining affordable prices, but discouraging deep discounts or very cheap fares.
o Defining some kind of roadmap towards hydrogen conversion. For instance, airliners built after a certain point should be prepared for such a conversion during their expected service life.

I read somewhere that the US Dept of Transportation (or was it Energy?) did a study and found passenger rail (i.e. Amtrak) being actually less efficent than travel on passenger airlines. Is this true? It sort of confounds common sense, but the explanation I heard is that in the past 30 years airlines have made major improvements in efficency whereas there has been no such effort within the US for passenger rail. I understand that many of the European high-speed rail systems are very efficent, but as far as traveling within the US, should I consider Amtrak an environmentally preferable choice to flying? I personally love train travel when its less expensive then flying and I'm not in a rush - you can walk around the train, get food and have a tremendous amount of personal space - but I'm interested if its any more environmentally sound.

Here are some loony ideas, but bear with me:

Would it be at all helpful to start using more blimps to move goods and people? They're slow, but they can be powered by electricity or alcohol or bio-diesel. This could be a sort of ferry system, such as moving things to and from central hubs where conventional aircraft can do long-distance runs.

Also, what about smaller (Leer-sized) jets that run on alcohol or an alcohol/kerosene mix? Is that possible? (forgive me, I'm not an engineer).

I'm one of those people who thinks that global warming is too big a problem to solve without some kind of technological help. It's an unpopular view - but we have to be realistic, if every country in the world signed up to Kyoto now, it would be way under the 70% cut scientists are telling us we need.
Consequently, I'd like to see all planes releasing some fairly harmless substance to encourage a 'global dimming' effect. That way flying - while still obviously a problem - could help to counter some of the damage we have done.
Engineer poet at the Ergosphere has a vaguely related proposition if anyone is interested!

Kerosene could be replaced by biodiesel without much difficulty, assuming adequate supplies were available.
Aj

Kerosene could be replaced by biodiesel without much difficulty

100% biodiesel? That wouldn't be wise.

In regards to US trains (Amtrak) possibly being less efficent, that might be because the Bush administration has been trying their hardest to shut down the passenger trains and freight trains are given priority on the tracks. But I also don't trust any US Dept. of Anything reports in regards to mass transit or anything else.

Kerosene could be replaced by biodiesel without much difficulty

I dunno. Jet A has to be very, very clean and uniform, as well as entirely lacking water content. Can biodiesel be so uniform? I don't know but it doesn't sound like it.

Plus since this stuff is being burned at altitude, it really is a good place to use H2, and make only water rather than ozone depleting chemicals, particulates, and whatever other gunk comes out of burning carbon-based fuels.

Still, I'm not saying any option should be ruled out.

Using biodiesel instead of kerosene for jet fuel wouldn't work. Biodiesel gels at 40 degrees F, and the temperature at altitude is significantly lower.

Since I can't not fly, I simply purchase carbon offsets whenever I travel. Personally I think these offsets should be mandatory and included in the price of your ticket!

"Using biodiesel instead of kerosene for jet fuel wouldn't work. Biodiesel gels at 40 degrees F, and the temperature at altitude is significantly lower."

Wouldn't it be possible to divert some waste heat from the engines to keep the fuel at a certain temperature?

"Since I can't not fly, I simply purchase carbon offsets whenever I travel."

Out of curiosity, why can't you "not fly"?

"Personally I think these offsets should be mandatory and included in the price of your ticket!"

Agreed, but as I said above, it's not just the amount of carbon that is the problem; it is the emissions and where they are produced.

I'm thinking of taking the trans-siberian rail to beijing and ship to japan in order to minimise my carbon emissions. is the reduction in co2 emissions significant enough to make it worth my while?

Every year I drive about 10,000 mile in my car too and from work, I use X amount of fuel. If I wanted to double the amount of fuel I use in a year, I'd just take a weekend break over the altantic and back.

Don't kid yourself, no one's forcing you to get on that plane. Its your choice, double your fuel annual consumption or don't.

Don't kid yourself, no one's forcing you to get on that plane. Its your choice, double your fuel annual consumption or don't.

So we should cease all trans-oceanic travel? Or are you going to be the judge as to who's "worthy" of making those trips?

Provide some workable solution, please.

It's actually kind of frustrating. My carbon footprint's about as small as it can be for someone who doesn't have much choice over where she lives in a city full of old housing developments.

I turn off all electricity before leaving the house, I don't use the heater or an aircon and I walk EVERYWHERE (made easier by the fact that I'm in NYC).

But then every year when I choose to see the members of my family in China, suddenly that footprint jumps up and it would take seven earths to provide for people like me.

So what am I supposed to do to lower that without losing the luxury of family contact?

A question for the Treehuggers:

If a person has to fly for business, and they refuse and lose their job, will you support their family out of your own pockets?

Cuz, you know, there are people who "can't not fly" and there are people who are forced to get on that plane.

Its a personal choice, I can only judge whether my own long distance trips are worthy of being made. If lots of people are going to benefit positively, for example travelling as a speaker to a climate change conference, or to creat jobs in the third world, I'll go. If its just me going on holiday so I can lie in the sun or visit relatives, then I'll not bother.

If a person has to fly for business, then they don't really have the choice, they can suggest to their employers other ways of addressing the situation, such as video conferencing or getting someone closer to destination to do it. If that's not an option, then its not an option.

Visiting family, well, thats your choice, your decision. If visiting them or them visiting you means that your annual fuel consumption and carbon footprint multiplies, then thats still your choice. May I suggest emails, photos, video-messaging or living closer to your relatives as alternatives to travelling and losing the luxury of family contact.

Its just a case of appreciating when you have a personal choice in the matter.

Power Failure Halts Rails in Northeast

Tens of thousands of commuters' trips were disrupted today as a power failure stopped Amtrak and local commuter line trains operating on tracks between Washington and New York.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/25/nyregion/25cnd-amtrak.html

Don't kid yourself, no one's forcing you to get on that plane. Its your choice, double your fuel annual consumption or don't.

Well Chris, I don't drive 10,000 miles a year, or even 5,000, but do I need to fly sometimes. How would you feel if I simply told you "It's your choice, drive 10,000 miles, or don't.". If you drive 10,000 miles, you may have a good reason. I just hope you do it with an efficient vehicle and practice efficient driving techniques.

Sure, I can agree with you that the famous "weekend in Paris" is a terribly wasteful way to spend some free time (well, unless you live, say, in London). But trivial flying aside, there are good reasons for long-distance travel. I've laid out a number of mitigation approaches. You've opted for simply condemming those who don't follow your particular 10,000 car-mile a year lifestyle.

It's an approach that will neither solve the problem nor win any friends to the cause.

It is also misleading, in terms of medium-distance travel. For instance, do you have any idea how much fuel is used to build and maintain roads? I write software for the construction industry, and believe me it is a staggering number, which depending on the location of the road can run into thousands of gallons per mile per lane without even counting concrete for bridges or major earthworks, just simple paving, paint, barriers, and signage.

I'd like to see a complete lifecycle analysis of air vs. road travel, including road construction and maintenance, car replacement consumption, and land degradation. On the air side I would add airliner production and airport construction and operation.

I suspect the results would vary by region. I seriously doubt auto travel is always better, or even, in some cases, rail travel. In mountain regions, for instance, air distances are probably in the order of half to a third of land distances, grades and altitude cause poor mileage, and roadworks are especially costly and environmentally damaging.

"The thing is that flying is important in a connected world"

Promote telecommuting. It is much more cheaper, can be substantially more 'green', and often more convenient.

"If a person has to fly for business, and they refuse and lose their job, will you support their family out of your own pockets?"

Should I have to pay to support a family of a person who is deathly afraid of flying, and subsequently loses hir job for not flying?

"On the air side I would add airliner production and airport construction and operation."

...and the fuel to get to and from the aeroport for passengers, pilots, and other workers; car replacement for passengers, pilots, and other workers; road construction and maintenance for the roads to the aeroport; the extra fuel used to fly in circles waiting to land...

We do not always fly for pleasure... the following link will help you to calculate the CO2 emission during your flight. if you want to you can spend a correspondent amount of money (test the emissions calculator) for energy-efficiency projects to thereby reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
http://www.atmosfair.de/index.php?id=9&L=3

I recall reading an article reporting that Russia was developing hydrogen fuel cell technology to power passenger aircraft.

I also recall a report made about the week after September 11, in which the air quality had significantly increased due to the near-total grounding of flights in North America, and I assume Europe as well (save the special flights arranged by Bush for relatives of Bin Laden).

Anyone have any further information on these?