Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to climate activist Lisa Floris, greens like her need to be able to fly, to see things with their own eyes, to fully appreciate the harm we are doing to the planet.
Is giving up flying the best way to stop climate change?
By Lise Floris
I start sweating nervously every time I read about how air travel impacts the environment.
Having lived abroad for more than 20 years, I take a plane as if it were a city bus, worrying only about how to get from A to B as quickly as possible.
And yet I know there are very valid arguments for why we should substantially reduce aeroplane journeys, or stop flying altogether.
A very guilty pleasure
Without doubt I am responsible for the emission of hundreds of tonnes of CO2.
…
Modern-day technology means that business meetings can be held via Skype or video conference and we can visit any place in the world just by going on YouTube or putting on our virtual reality glasses.
But perhaps flying offers something even more important. Could it be that flying is necessary for the soul?
…
Flying in order to “be there” has taught me about many things.
With tears in my eyes, I have seen thousands of acres of palm oil plantations in Asia from the air — and their impact on wildlife from the ground.
…
Read more: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-04/flying-climate-change-stay-grounded/11067918
The solution is obvious – while flying restrictions should apply to the general population, those who feel most deeply about the degradation we are inflicting on the Earth clearly need access to air travel so they can fully appreciate and cherish the beauty of our world’s natural spaces.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The sacrifices needed to “fight climate change” are always Other People’s Sacrifices, just like the money needed to do it is OPM. Sacrifices on the altar of the most politically correct.
The Progressive Way.
But eventually that system always “eats its own.”
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. (Orwell’s “Animal Farm.”)
Collectivism has failed in almost every instance where it has been implemented on a national scale. But it will SURELY WORK THE NEXT TIME! So think many an idiot or Progressive (but I repeat myself), not understanding how, once in power, people are loathe to give up their personal advantages. Just as it is true that once a “wealthy” population is created, it will be loathe to give up its standard of living for the kind of crap promoted by Alexandria O-C. Democratic voters are forewarned.
I love the song “Won’t Get Fooled, Again” by The Who. It’s Orwell’s Animal Farm told in great rock music.
The only time “collectivism” worked (and that for only a short period of time) was in the early church where people VOLUNTARILY shared what they had to those in need. There was no common ownership and there was no centralized planning. They still owned their own property and decided how it was to be used. I bring this up because socialists claim that the early church was socialist. It was mutual, voluntary, sharing not socialism.
For the faithful, you may pay your indulgences through guilt and Confession but the “Church” prefers payment in coin.
Bill,
I know there is a massive amount of misunderstanding of indulgences and Confession among the general non-Catholic population but they only apply to people who have a firm purpose of amendment: a strong intention never to commit those sins again. So the analogy fails totally if it refers to people who fully intend to keep on flying.
They get that idea of indulgences from the period just before the Reformation, when the “church” was very corrupt and indulgences were being sold for money making purposes. You may be right about today, but there were periods when the ‘church’ was as corrupt as any banana republic.
The firm purpose of amendment of Sunday morning often evaporate on Monday morning back at the office where there is the primordial climb to the top of the pack by all means necessary…. until next Sunday when penance and discretely folded bill in the collection box absolves one’s soul and a promise to try harder next time.
The absolution of guilt is the best way to ensure re-offending.
I know there is a massive amount of misunderstanding of indulgences
Aba, you are showing a massive amount of misunderstanding about the history of indulgences that give rise to the comparison in the first place. There was a period of time, prior to the reformation, when indulgences were “sold” to make money. Indeed, it was a backlash against the abuse of indulgences that help lead to the protestant reformation.
Nothing like shaping your ideology to fit your purpose. It’s the Green way.
I think all who believe in AGW or AGCC should commit suicide in the “greenest” possible way thereby saving us all the trauma of their continued destruction of the planet. Bye bye.
I believe the greenest way is Self Composting…
Composting creates bacteria which generate CO2. The best way is to throw them into the peat bogs of Denmark.
To those AGW or AGCC folks:
Nitrogen works. Make it easy on yourself, and no mess for others.
The body needs to then be freeze dried naturally.
High peaks in the Andes of South America.
Go. Go now.
And most of those palm oil plantations result from environmental regulations to displace fossil diesel pushed by people like Lise Floris who have to destroy the environment to save it.
So true. Having lived in Malaysia since 1996 and visited neighbouring Indonesia many times I saw that the need for our Nutella and cooking oil was easily covered…..but covering the insane demand for burning palm oil instead of perfectly fine diesel was just mind boggling. Then the same destructive green idiots claim that palm oil has to be boycotted as it destroys the habitat of much wildlife.
Some of us knew that biofuels are harmful to the environment in countless ways but. Some people apparently think is ok to kill Orangutans by using their habitats for fuel but if it’s used for human consumption then it’s not ok
To vilify the “un-green” Boogeyman Fossil Fuels, then to vilify the preferred “Green” replacement “Renewable” biofuel Palm Oil is truly a sign of a deep seated Psychological disorder perhaps associated with Autophobia
I believe the truth of it is actually very simple: There are people who think they are good and smart, but who are in reality, stupid a$$holes.
When you watch some flat earth videos, you definitely see that in action. They are of course an extreme example, but they demonstrate your conclusion perfectly.
It is impossible to know for certain, but if I had to bet, I would wager that most of the flat Earthers are just goofing on everyone, and the rest of them are the ones they have successfully goofed.
Even in days of yore, when people supposedly thought the Earth was flat, almost no-one really thought that. No one of any consequence anyway.
The proof of a spherical planet is all around us (sorry, could not resist) and plain as day…and night. From the angular height of distant objects, to the shadows seen during eclipses, to being able to actually see it when high up on a peak, it is impossible for anyone using their eyes and logic to think anything like a flat Earth.
In any case, the people exemplified by Lise Floris have, IMO, fully earned and are richly deserving of all scorn heaped their way. There is no one worse than a self-absorbed busybody with zero self awareness. Even megalomaniacal narcissists are not as bad, as they do not purport to be the way they are for the sake of caring about others. They wear their mental illness right on their sleeve.
Dunning-Kruger for the most part. MIxed with genuine idiots and a couple of very dangerous individuals who just want to see the world burn..
It seems to me the Left, and that includes ALL variations of ‘leftness’ are always on the outlook for something to be frightened to death about! When they find something, it always involves OTHER people being inconvenienced or TAXED to death. In other words, OTHER people have to be punished! The elitist’s who ‘discover’ this fearful thing are not required to give up THEIR way of life! Of course not. As noted, it’s like the OPM syndrome.
According to an item on BBC R4, it is ok to fly as long as you offset the CO2 but planting trees.
So I guess the rich, who can afford to pay for offsets. can continue to fly as much as they want.
A couple of questions however, has anyone ever worked out how many trees would need to be planted each year to offset all of the CO2 from flying, and is there enough space on the planet to plant all those trees.
When I recently rented a car I noticed that I was being offered the chance to buy carbon offsets. (They’ve been offered for a while, I just hadn’t noticed before.) link
This seems akin to the hotels who offer you the chance to forego having your towels washed so you can protect the environment. ie. it’s a chance for a business to make a bit more money and virtue signal at the same time.
I wonder if other businesses have discovered this wonderful revenue stream.
Commercial accommodations reducing cleaning and laundry is how bedbugs have reestablished in the US. Bedbugs are minimized by repeated fractional reduction.
That and washing clothes, towels and bedding at 30’C to protect the environment. None of these green initiatives are thought through.
A small problem with the use of trees for offsetting CO2 generated by flying. Wind parks and solar installations require large open spaces. Thousands of acres in the case of wind. So all the trees must be clear-cut. Catch 22.
No matter what we do the trees grow bigger and faster the more CO2 there’s available and these trees do not care the slightest where that CO2 came from.
Currently many governments work hard to prevent their nations to green the Earth. If we look at their taxation schemes there must be a hidden agenda which is somehow related to starving the biosphere
So we must then attach the wind turbine to the top of the tree and as the tree grows, the turbine remains above the top of the canopy.
/Snark
It seems to me the Left, and that includes ALL variations of ‘leftness’ are always on the outlook for something to be frightened to death about! When they find something, it always involves OTHER people being inconvenienced or TAXED to death. In other words, OTHER people have to be punished! The elitist’s who ‘discover’ this fearful thing are not required to give up THEIR way of life! Of course not. As noted, it’s like the OPM syndrome.
That’s not catch 22.
You get ( buy ) carbon credits for planting a tree. Someone else gets CC for chopping it down to place a wind turbine. WIN_WIN.
Plus paper CC is like paper gold, it never really existed. They chop down your tree before it gets planted but still pocket the CC cash at both ends but avoid the inconvenient labour costs. Hey, cutting out the middle has always been the road to success.
I need to be sincere in my tear-jerky glurge! I need to see the walrus go ‘splat’!!!!
So…
Claim diesel motors and biofuel are ‘better’ for the environment. Check.
Devastate entire countries to produce palm oil.. Check.
Fly over resultant devastation, sobbing. Check.
Wail about ‘it all’ whilst cashing the checks ‘earned’ by your creative writing on a subject you just had to experience first hand. Cheque.[UK]
One of the best comments I’ve ever read, especially the “cheque” at the end
Yep
Check!
Plus 100+!
Too many “greens” are arrogant hypocrites.
At COP24 …..
The meat-based options offered at the conference (4.1 kg CO2e per serving) generate average greenhouse
gas emissions more than four times higher than the plant-based meals offered (0.90 kg CO2e per serving).
• The two dairy-free plant-based options generate one-tenth of the GHG emissions as the meat-based
entrees and less than half the emissions of the plant-based options with cheese.
• The food court’s pork-and-beef dumplings (7.7 kg CO2e per serving) have more than 24 times the carbon
footprint of the cabbage-and-mushroom dumplings (0.31 kg CO2e per serving).
• The most carbon-intensive entrée available (beef with smoked bacon, 11 kg CO2e per serving) contributes
35 times the greenhouse gas emissions of the least carbon-intensive entrée (cabbage-and-mushroom
dumplings).
• If the food court replaced the beef patties with plant-based patties on its cheeseburgers with Louisiana
sauce, it could cut each burger’s carbon footprint by 82 percent, or 6 kg of GHG emissions each.
• Replacing fish or shrimp with tofu could reduce emissions by over 50 percent for those entrees, or about 1
kg CO2e per serving.
No, Owen! ALL Greens are arrogant hypocrites. Many are liars as well. And that, as the saying goes, is just their good points!
At least the meat eaters are contributing to the real greening of the planet.
How many methane producing buffulo used ro roam north anerica vesus cattle and other livestoxk today??
Apparently 20-30 million as opposed to over 90 million cattle.
I don’t know about relative methane outputs.
“estimates range from 30 to 75 million”
https://www.fws.gov/species/species_accounts/bio_buff.html
Estimates go as high as 120 million bison. And one bison equals about two cows or steers.
(Cattle are half the size of bison, and also about 5% more efficient. And while all male bison grew up to be bulls, and therefore maxed out their size potential, very few male domestic bovines keep their testicles, and therefore stay about the same size as cows.)
You don’t no nothing Reziac ,
As a former beef farmer in New Zealand I can tell you that bulls grow faster than steers because of their male hormones but steers will grow extremely large if they are not slaughtered at around 30 month of age .
I have seen one black steer kept as a pet that weighs in excess of 2 tons at the age of nine years .
We farmed bulls as they could be sold for the burger market in the United States at a good weight at around 22 months old .
Steers took two and a half years to reach the same weight so had to be carried through another winter and early spring when pasture was in short supply .
If you check the estimates and calculations used to generate those average greenhouse emissions, you will find they are based on misunderstanding, gross assumptions and massive misinformation.
To the point that those claims are worthless and toothless.
e.g. 1; They assume all meat are grain fed. Ruminants can be fattened up using grains, for a brief period.
Ruminants can have a little grain added to their diets to improve nutrition during winter, but it is an expensive diet.
e.g. 2; They assume all land used for raising meats, especially ruminants, are lands removed from raising crops for human consumption.
Instead, most ruminants spend their lives eating grasses and browse. Often these animals are raised where it is difficult to near impossible to raise human foods; e.g. corn, at reasonable cost.
Hi ATheoK, – I generally like your comments & only wish to address where you dismiss “… claims … [as] … worthless.”
It seems you in counterpoint have also made an assumption. Namely “most ruminants” can “… spend their lives … “ browsing grasses.
I farm in a semi-arid tropical ecological niche & along with my neighbors rear some cattle (although personally do not eat meat I do consume dairy). We are obliged to purchase supplemental feed & transport it in; many even must truck in water at some point.
While our region does have a rainy season suitable for field cropping the economics favor rearing cattle for market & milk. Animal husbandry is more profitable than food crops & involves less issues of a workforce.
Depending on one’s land & water availability we ideally try to grow some kind of feed for when the grazing fails. Our region does grow maize (corn) quite well once a year given decent rain; so the cattle are not “… raised where … difficult … to raise human foods.”
On the issue of greenhouse emissions as calculated using CO2e (equivalents) I am not too
concerned – personally I have no qualms about CO2 levels elevating. Since some scientific inquiry into it is being made I am scientifically interested to look into the context. In other words: I see nothing wrong with quantification of relative CO2 equivalents (or things like nutritional investigations of crops at elevated CO2) in their informational context & yet am not supporting the imposition of policies based on the data.
By the way a 2015 Netherlands study found that (in that ecosystem ) 12% was the sweet spot for animal products (principally milk) for human dietary protein; lower than 12% underutilized land & over 12% required human food land diverted. To be precise this is in the context where no Netherland food was sent out & no outside of Netherlands food was brought in – within the explicit context of feeding a population of 40 million or more.
He didn’t say “all ruminants” he said most.
Hi MarkW, – I accurately quoted from ATheoK in my 2nd paragraph’s 2nd sentence by quotation marks of the 2nd word & 3rd words. If you monitor your comments after posting I trust you will verify this.
gringojay, I think you missed MarkW’s point. As ATheoK said “most” (as you yourself quoted him as saying) pointing to a single anecdote doesn’t not undermine the statement. If he had said “all” instead of “most” then your anecdote would mean something in regards to what he said. He didn’t so it doesn’t.
Also neglects that nearly all arable land is already farmed, because crops are both more profitable and more reliable than livestock.
Further, they never figure in how much dryland (non-irrigated) land is producing grain, nor how many tractors and combines it takes to harvest the crops, nor the fuel it takes to run ’em.
And last, they NEVER figure in that all realistically-productive land is by necessity a monoculture, where ALL other life is exterminated to the best of our ability, because it interferes with growing that crop. Conversely, grazing land differs not at all from its ancestral form (other than being a bit undergrazed**, therefore more weedy/barren, compared to when it supported bison instead of cattle).
**Grasslands evolved to be grazed; if you don’t graze ’em as they expect, pretty soon the grass dies back and you have weeds and bare dirt; and the poorer the grazing land, the worse it suffers from being undergrazed. I have personally observed the difference in grazed high desert (native grass and flowers) vs ungrazed high desert (weeds and blowing dust, and it only took 3 years ungrazed to completely degrade).
Hi Reziac, – I do not consider crops “… more reliable than livestock….” Crops can fail to be productive for water issues, pest infestation & also timely labor shortage. While livestock have attendant issues they can, in a sense, be moved easier when trying to preserve their value.
As for mono-culture: this has not been the only productive method of agriculture ever practiced, however it does superbly with mechanized farming. I can think of a variety of methods, both historical & contemporary, without parsing for population of course.
cabbage-and-mushroom dumplings for the entrée; cabbage-and-mushroom dumplings for the meal ; plant-based patties and ‘plant based’ tofu desert !!
There enough there to offset a heard of AOC’s “farting cow’s” with farting climatologists.
The answer for this writer is to do the travel necessary for her soul by boat and train. She would actually see a lot more of the world at close quarters that but it would be more expensive (probably) and certainly less convenient. It says buckets about her commitment to the environment that she hasn’t considered it.
My career was in nuclear power. I have spent my retirement bicycling, up close and personal with nature.
‘I have spent…[?]’
Surely: ‘I am spending…[?]
Unless he’s since left retirement for part-time (or even full time) work. Some people retire and the get bored after a while and decide to un-retire.
Those conveyances are also fossil fueled.
Trains and boats may be efficient when loaded to their maximum and run on straight easy runs at an efficient speed.
All too frequently trains and boats are loaded to much less than maximum and run at many speeds depending upon conditions or needs.
If the author Lise Floris was serious about reducing CO₂, she would use electronic means for meetings or bicycle.
As a matter of fact ocean liners consume more fuel per passenger kilometer than aircraft.
Two reasons: water resistance and parasitic weight. The water resistance rises very quickly with speed, so can be avoided by using slow ships, say ten konots. Unfortunately this means that voyages become very long, which means that passengers need more room, more stores are needed, a larger crew etc which means parasitic weight goes way up…..
Shaking my head in dismay – today’s ‘greens’ are the pigs in Animal Farm.
Anyway, based on 1 click (direct to Wikipedia), looks like flying = a measly 2.94 – 3.7 Litres of jet fuel, per passenger, to travel 100 km. Not too bad, IMO.
I like to fly to warmer countries where I can spend the winter so I don’t have to spend more $$$ than an airfare costs to … HEAT MY HOUSE.
So if you fly 33800 km from Heathrow to Sydney, including the return trip, then based on an average of 3kg fuel per 100km, you will have burnt up 1014 kg of fuel. Plus whatever is burnt during your stay in Australia as distances between cities are BIG.
So if my calculations are correct this is equivalent to 1000 llitres of heating oil which at current cost including tax is about £490.
Can you get a return flight from Heathrow to ẞydney for £490?
The cheapest I can find is £515 cattle class, with most about £715.
Business class a lot more.
Presumably you spend the winter a lot closer to home.
Why Heathrow to Sydney? Going somewhere warmer for the winter doesn’t require travelling ~180 degrees of latitude as well.
longitude even
A mere 85 degrees (ish) in latitude.
Do not overlook that combustion combines that carbon and hydrogen with two oxygens. Increasing the weight of the resultant exhaust by over 200%.
Lise Floris’ dismissive claim regarding her claim causing hundreds of tons of CO₂ emissions, is a combination of ignorance, privilege, disdain, compassion and refusal to seriously research her claims/beliefs.
Why fly? Suggest take the train from London to Taranto. Or, if you like in North America, take the train from Toronto to Fort Lauderdale.
Let your house out in the winter to someone who prefers the cold/ice/snow and use that to offset the cost of your warmer apartment in the tropical/near tropical regions.
Or even take a cargo ship from Liverpool to the Persian Gulf and back. Buy goodies in Bahrain, etc, and claim them as your baggage on the way back. Letting your house out will cover the cost of your passage, and the profits you make on selling the pots and brasses you bought will cover the customs duties on return. Meanwhile you will be fed in style, drinks at duty free prices and get a nice relaxed journey, and see some foreign ports. If the ship gets diverted, you can always fly home!
With a modern cargo ship you will see exactly two container terminals.
And a lot of water.
Isn’t the solution for these global warming activists obvious. Since they lack the courage of their convictions then they should be helped by putting them on a no fly list. Let them praise and experience first hand the benefits of the benevolent totalitarian state they wish to impose on us unenlightened plebians after all we are told we have only have a few years to save the planet.
Shortly to be followed by tearful plantations of why climate activist hypocrites like her have to use electricity produced by fossil fuels to fully understand how energy is generated, eat choice foods flown in from all over the world to fully understand bio-diversity, have an expensive chauffeur driven car to understand the roads issue and how the misguided other people can be made to realise how unimportant and marginal they are….etc etc
Same old same old Rottenborough, Harrabin, Packham, Lord Deben self-serving drivel. The stench from these eco-hypocrites is truly nauseating.
I truly feel sorry for this lady, what a position she now finds herself in. Here she is working so hard to “Save the Planet”, but she is ndirectly
emitting that dreadful CO2 stuff.
So lets assume that he jobs are truly necessary, how can she atone for the big sin of causing more of that dreadful pollutant .. Perhaps she could revert to the “Sackcloth and ashes” lifestyle that I an sure she wishes on us.
She can to some extent make up for these dreadful gasses by living a very simple life style. Such as when she alights from those flying machine, she then either walks, or at the most cycles to her destination.
As for accommodation,. I suggest a bedroll and a nice bit of grass, we
would truly admire her for making such sacrifices.
Abstain from all of the comforts that our 21 st century, fossil fuel life style provides, so no electronic devices, people can use their mouth to talk directly to each other..
Welcome to the real miserable world that you want us to embrace.
MJE VK5ELL
That should have been explanations, not plantations, corrected version:
Shortly to be followed by tearful explanations of why climate activist hypocrites like her have to use electricity produced by fossil fuels to fully understand how energy is generated, eat choice foods flown in from all over the world to fully understand bio-diversity, have an expensive chauffeur driven car to understand the roads issue and how the misguided other people can be made to realise how unimportant and marginal they are….etc etc
Same old same old Rottenborough, Harrabin, Packham, Lord Deben self-serving drivel. The stench from these eco-hypocrites is truly nauseating.
Translation: flying is for the aristocracy.
Yep. How did we get here? Leftism and phony-green-ism is the new aristocracy wannabe-ism.
Darwinian evolution did it. I wish we could have that one back for a reboot.
Is bringing Darwinism into the conversation equivalent to “reductio ad Hitlerum” in other conversations? Perhaps some of these eco-freaks are worthy of a Darwin award but it does not have anything to do with the subject at hand.
Excellent observation, Dean. 👍👍🏆
“According to climate activist Lisa Floris, greens like her need to be able to fly, to see things with their own eyes, to fully appreciate the harm we are doing to the planet.”
When she says “we”, I hope she understand who is to blame. Without green activists hysteria maybe South Americas rainforests would be still untouched.
Doing “good” for the planet is destroying it. She shouldn´t fly just to see her own sins.
>>>>>>>>>>>>”Could it be that flying is necessary for the soul?”<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>”I have seen thousands of acres of palm oil plantations in Asia from the air — and their impact on wildlife from the ground.”<<<<<<<<<<
I feel queezy
I know what you mean, I’m NOT going to buy another product containing Palm Oil again
It’s even worse than that. They said the Copenhagen COP in 2009 was a resounding success for none except cab drivers and prostitutes.
Translation: cognitive-dissonance is good for your mental health.
Those that feel that the use of fossil fuels is bad should stop using all goods and services that involve the use of fossil fuels . After it is their money that is keeping the fossil fuel companies in business.
EXACTLY! I wish i could communicate that to every climate hypocrite out there, but they always have a reason why they should not sacrifice anything, like it must come from above (instead of start from themselves) or such rubbish.
From production to logistics, there is essentially nothing that is not dependent on fossil fuels in modernity.
We have an election in OZ in a couple of weeks and the “Independent” going against our past prime minister ( who calls climate change crap and at one time recommended an exit from the Paris agreement ) with opposition backing ( so not really an independent ) has endorsed the oppositions huge reduction targets that will cripple the nation. However she has admitted that she has no solar on the roof of her house and drives a gas guzzling SUV because she has to take the kids to school. Hypocrisy, or just do as I say and not as I do.
With tears in my eyes, I see hundreds of windmills polluting the landscape.
I would suggest she should get on a slow boat to China.
You mean row boat?
preferably a rusting leaky one in storm season
And Here she writes: I start sweating nervously every time I read about how air travel impacts the environment. I don’t want to stay grounded, writes Lise Floris.
…
I take a plane as if it were a city bus
…
There are ways of compensating for a lifestyle like mine
Indeed there are ways; ways that most people will be forced to accept.
Lise Poulsen Floris is a Danish EU official turned blogger and freelance contributor. Since leaving her native Denmark in 1998, she has lived in Italy and Belgium before moving to China
https://www.scmp.com/author/lise-floris
“Could it be that flying is necessary for the soul?” Right, most of those in the trade have the same thought at every paycheck…
This said, if mass air transport ceases, flying ceases altogether. The entire safety structure will collapse short of activity. And shift the remaining VIP operators reliability figures to those of general aviation if not worse.
ARINC will vanish, fuel supply sink way below standards, TV weather forecasts become a valuable commodity, alternate airports would close, the entire ETOPS concept loose it’s meaning.
Aviation is the result of considerable driven by mass travel financial and political efforts.
Only fractal idiots, those entirely made of intellectually deficient elements down to their elementary particles would vouch to limit or otherwise kill aviation and consequently, travel, tourism, freight.
I love the solution –> it is up to the aircraft manufacturers to make the planes more efficient.
She won’t change so others have to fix her problem!
Modern aircraft are very efficient. However there are other factors than efficiency involved. A few decades ago most commuter aircraft were turboprops, now most are (less fuel-efficient) jets.
This was driven purely by passenger preferences. First turboprops are inevitably noisier and have more vibrations than jets. Second, it seems completely impossible to convince passengers that aircraft with propellers are not old and unsafe.
TurboFANS.
Scaring people off is nothing new : here Claudin Sermisy from 1508
Je ne menge point de porc (I do not eat pork at all)
French text, with English
If only the greenies were musical!
If you are traveling more than ~500 miles then flying is far more efficient than any other form of transport. Modern aircraft are very fuel efficient and return Miles Per Gallon Per Passenger Mile in excess of 125MPGPPM. Not only that but there is no need to build and maintain infrastructure between departure and destination only the airports at each end of the flight. Think of the energy required to build and maintain railways and roads and bridges etc. Then take into account the value of passenger time and the difficulty and inefficiency of some journeys by other means (New York to Frankfurt perhaps or Dubai to Auckland) and air travel is by far the most efficient means of medium to long distance travel.
The demonizing of air travel is as spurious as the demonizing of carbon dioxide.
” Not only that but there is no need to build and maintain infrastructure between departure and destination only the airports at each end of the flight.”
Not so: there has to be a complex air traffic control network and a combination of terrestrial and satellite navigations aids. The traveller never sees all this, of course, but it is there and it is expensive to build and maintain.
I think he meant constructed infrastructure like roads, highways, bridges, tracks, etc., opposite of what is needed for AOC’s high-speed trains.
@David Chappel
The complex air traffic control network consists of a whole 22 control centers for the entire CONUS and Alaska and Hawaii. Current aircraft do not use ‘navaids’ like you do with your cell phone in your car they use GPS. There are some ‘navaids’ at airports but they are the infrastructure of the airport. There is also a set of Automatic Dependent Surveillance receivers that is comprised of less than a thousand receiver sites.
The entire aviation system is extremely efficient and far safer than other transport systems.
Not to mention that people were successfully flying all over the world for many years before any of that existed.
So what we have and what is strictly needed are two different things.
You seem to forget that there is a whole lot of world outside the United States and every country has at least one ATCC. GPS is still a “navaid” (which incidentally is what your cellphone uses) and which is why I specifically said “terrestrial and satellite”.
If you seriously believe that modern aircraft do not use “navaids” please google “jeppesen enroute charts”
Yes, the aviation sytem is extremely efficient but it still depends on expensive infrastructure outwith departure and arrival airports.
Actually most long flights are over oceans where there is no radar coverage and no traffic control and the same applies to most of Africa as well.
And terrestrial navaids are largely a thing of the past except near airports (VOR). Gee is gone, LORAN is gone, DECCA is gone, Omega is gone.
Air traffic control does not consist solely of radar. Indeed, it is outside areas of radar coverage (even over the oceans) that traffic control is essential.
Well said Ian
Today’s Times reports Lord Deben’s family business has received £500,000 from companies profiting from the climate policies his committee of supine dummies has put into effect. Staggering what you can get away with if you are in the magic circle and no one asks any questions.