jet travel and global warming

[sophiaserpentia]

So Richard Branson says he's going to dedicate $3,000,000,000 over the next 10 years to combat global warming.

Branson is the owner of Virgin. Virgin runs an airline. Jet planes account for 3% of greenhouse gas emissions, but contribute disproportionately to global warming because these gasses are emitted right there in the upper atmosphere, where they do the most harm. They also aggravate the greenhouse effect because contrails linger as clouds.

Does anyone else see a problem here? Branson could do more to combat global warming by grounding his fleet of jets immediately and financing alternate modes of transportation.

Some science fiction authors, such as David Brin, foresee the return of zepplin travel. Whatever the case, this issue is going to come to a head in the next decade, and people are going to have to swallow some big changes.

This won't be an easy pill for Americans, whose collective sense of entitlement knows no bounds. I anticipate loud protests from Americans when they are asked to give up rapid air travel for the sake of millions of people who are at risk of losing their homes.

The Earth Policy Institute in Washington, DC, calls the evacuees from Hurricane Katrina one of the first waves of "climate refugees." Residents of various islands and communities in the pacific are already having to move to get away from rising sea levels. While "climate refugees" now number "only" in the hundreds of thousands, we could see this figure rise 1000 times larger within our lifetimes.

Comments

[brontosproximo.livejournal.com]

This precise issue was addressed in an episode of STTNG and people were so blind to it, very few people recognized that it was a comment on airline travel affecting the environment.

[cennetig.livejournal.com]

Airships NOW!

[orb2069.livejournal.com]

HELL YES! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeppelin_NT)

[gramina.livejournal.com]

Well, as I read it, he's contributing the whole profit from the air travel business to finding alternative fuels and modes of transportation. I guess you've got to look at what percent of the airline emissions Virgin represents, and at the effect that that money will have overall, and decide if grouding Virgin is more effective or less effective that contributing that much money to research and development for alternatives.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I suppose "harm reduction" could potentially be justified here, but i am notably wary of any kind of "end justifies the means" form of ethical reasoning. I think it sometimes conceals a lack of ingenuity on the part of our 'captains of industry.'

[liminalia.livejournal.com]

I disagree that grounding Virgin's planes would help the environment, because i believe their pssengers would simply get on other airlines. I don't think there'd be any noticeable reduction in air travel.

[wlotus.livejournal.com]

Since his business contributes to the problem, it's appropriate that he is contributing that kind of money to researching a solution. That's a balanced solution in a non-ideal world.

I rarely travel by air, but I wouldn't want to have rapid air travel eliminated without equally as rapid alternatives already in place. I don't have the vacation time or the personal wealth which would be necessary to take the time off I would need to travel by some other means between NYC and the island of Trinidad, where my sister lives. I only see her once a year, as it is, and those visits are already too short for our tastes, because of those constraints. Without rapid air travel, I and many other people around the world wouldn't be able to visit family and dear friends, or our rare visits would have to be shorter/rarer than they already are.

I don't think rapid air travel needs to be eliminated, but it's obvious alternatives need to be found. People can be encouraged to fly less--use conference calls for out-of-state business meetings, for example--and save flying for truly long flights, where traveling by some other means is not possible with the other real-life constraints they are working with. And while that is going on, money from people like Branson can be used to research alternatives.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I don't have the vacation time or the personal wealth which would be necessary to take the time off I would need to travel by some other means between NYC and the island of Trinidad, where my sister lives.

See, the way i look at it is, maybe Americans should have more vacation time. The fact that most Americans can afford air travel is probably one of the reasons employers allow less vacation time than in other parts of the developed world.

I doubt that rapid air travel will ever be entirely eliminated. I think though that in the coming decades it will probably become too expensive for most Americans.

[wlotus.livejournal.com]

I agree Americans should have more vacation time. Some of my associates in Trinidad were shocked that in a job as mentally taxing as mine, I can only accrue four weeks of leave time per year, and that leave time must be used for vacation, personal days, and sick days, however I need it. My sister and I just had a discussion about that, this morning.

I don't think employers allow less vacation time because most Americans can afford air travel; I think employers are simply stingy and do not want to pay for benefits overall. (The disappearance of pension plans is one part of that monster.) If the price of air travel goes up, I do not see employers increasing vacation time in order to allow people to travel by alternate means, unless it was mandated on a federal level. (An ice cube has a better chance of surviving in the La Brea Tar Pits.) I just see less people able to travel, because their already minimal leave time simply won't accomodate longer travel times by other means.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I don't think employers allow less vacation time because most Americans can afford air travel; I think employers are simply stingy and do not want to pay for benefits overall.

I tend to look at more than clear-cut cause and effect. I agree that rapid travel is not "the reason" Americans have less vacation time, but these are part of the overall pattern. Like the role of the automobile in the suburbanization of American cities. I would say that rapid travel was one of many factors that made it easier for employers to reduce vacation time.

I do agree, though, that rising costs of rapid air travel will not result in more vacation time for Americans. It could be that the age of globetrotting is simply over.

[wlotus.livejournal.com]

It could be that the age of globetrotting is simply over.

As xenophobic, separatist, and culturally arrogant as many Americans already are, I would hate to see that happen.

[arcanum-dogma.livejournal.com]

cheap air travel (which is not cheap when you look at the prices elsewhere) really isn't the problem. it's our perverse version of capitalism: consumerism. we work as many hours and multiple jobs because we believe we need to purchase every piece of crap with a killer branding campaign. the corporate leaders understand this and use it to their advantage.

don't want to spend most of your conscious life making someone else rich? don't buy stuff, learn to make it or do without.

BTW: get rid of affordable rapid air travel and most of those climate-refugees become economic hardship refugees as the tourist industry freefalls until only the top-out-of-sights are left as world travelers (i just love writing run-ons with poor punctuation usage)

[dalbino83.livejournal.com]

Just saw this today ... A town in Iowa is getting bulldozed today because it's in a flood plain. Now we have more climate refugees.

[cowgrrl.livejournal.com]

It would be really great if he put that money into revamping rail transit. High speed trains - the technology exists NOW.

[kumbunny.livejournal.com]

This won't be an easy pill for Americans, whose collective sense of entitlement knows no bounds. I anticipate loud protests from Americans when they are asked to give up rapid air travel for the sake of millions of people who are at risk of losing their homes.

I am trying towrapmy head around this scenario. Especially as it applies to car usage.

I cannot see it happening in our current political structure moves towards a more Autocratic system.

Like a modern monarchy. Only with science and the rational as Queen.

Hmmm

[discoflamingo.livejournal.com]

As somebody who works in the aerospace industry (inertial navigation systems for commercial planes), I can tell you that the airline industry knows that it has to evolve or die. Airlines are one of the lowest-margin industries in America; rising fuel costs alone have spurred large advances in fuel efficiency on newer airplanes (like the A380 and the 787 in general aviation; Embraer's line in business jets). The problem is convincing vendors that it is worth making the investment on research and retrofits when the following conditions are in play:

1. a yearly cost-cutting demand from airframe manufacturers to airlines as fuel prices climb.
2. cannibalization of the aging American aircraft fleets by newer domestic and international airlines as the monolithic carriers go bankrupt, which stalls adoption of newer airplanes and encourages retrofits which do not solve fuel usage problems.
3. aviation authority pressure to maintain current skyways when less environmentally dangerous/damaging skyways could be evaluated and used. This is driven by fuel costs, since many trips can be made shorter by flying higher, but it's not always necessary. Many of these skyways are still open because monolithic carriers have planes which can only complete certain trips by flying high. On a brighter note, Europe's JAA/EUROCAE authority is making some inroads on this issue as citizen awareness is raised.
4. America's propping-up of the largest carriers, even when they are no longer financially solvent. This keeps the oldest planes in the air, both through floating loans and an unwillingness to decommission older planes for fuel standards, because they are still up to code for safety standards.

It will be interesting to see how Branson plays this out with the Clinton Global Initiative, since Virgin is one of the only European airlines making large investments in newer aircraft (also, I'm curious to see who else is buying into this aspect of the Global Initiative). Most of the drivers for newer, fuel-efficient aircraft are coming from the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and Oceania. It would seem that they know something America doesn't.

[kittenkissies.livejournal.com]

Don't forget Virgin Galactica, also.
The Scaled Composite spaceplanes run on hydrogen peroxide and rubber.