Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

Flying is Dying

By George Monbiot, AlterNet. Posted March 1, 2006.


There is no way to halt global warming and continue traveling long distances at high speeds. The only solution is to stop flying in airplanes.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

At last the battlelines have been drawn, and the first major fight over climate change is about to begin. All over Britain, a coalition of homeowners and anarchists, NIMBYs and internationalists is mustering to fight the greatest future cause of global warming: the growth of aviation.

Not all these people care about the biosphere. Some are concerned merely that their homes are due to be bulldozed, or that, living under the new flight paths, they will never get a good night's sleep again. But anyone who has joined a broad-based coalition understands the power of this compound of idealism and dogged self-interest.

The industry has seen it, and is getting its revenge in first. Last week the Guardian obtained a leaked copy of a draft treaty between the European Union and the United States which would prevent us from taking any measure to reduce the airlines' environmental impact without the approval of the U.S. government. This, though it might be the widest-ranging, is not the first such agreement. The 1944 Chicago Convention, now supported by 4,000 bilateral treaties, rules that no government may levy tax on aviation fuel. The airlines have been bottle-fed throughout their lives.

The British government admits that the only area in which it is "free to make policy in isolation from other countries" is airport development: it could contain or reverse the growth of flights by restricting airport capacity. Instead it is softening us up for a third runway at Heathrow, and similar extensions at Stansted, Birmingham, Edinburgh and Glasgow. Twelve other airports have already announced expansion plans. According to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, the growth the government foresees will require "the equivalent of another Heathrow every 5 years."

Orwell's most accurate prediction in 1984 was the mutation of Britain into Airstrip One.

Already, one fifth of all the world's international air passengers fly to or from an airport in the UK. The numbers have risen five-fold in the past 30 years, and the government envisages that they will more than double by 2030, to 476 million a year. Perhaps "envisages" is the wrong word. By providing the capacity, the government ensures that the growth takes place.

As far as climate change is concerned, this is an utter, unparalleled disaster. It's not just that aviation represents the world's fastest growing source of carbon dioxide emissions. The burning of aircraft fuel has a "radiative forcing ratio" of around 2.7. What this means is that the total warming effect of aircraft emissions is 2.7 times as great as the effect of the carbon dioxide alone.

The water vapor they produce forms ice crystals in the upper troposphere (vapor trails and cirrus clouds) which trap the earth's heat. According to calculations by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, if you added the two effects together (it urges some caution as they are not directly comparable), aviation's emissions alone would exceed the government's target for the country's entire output of greenhouse gases in 2050 by around 134 percent. The government has an effective means of dealing with this. It excludes international aircraft emissions from the target.

It won't engage in honest debate because there is simply no means of reconciling its plans with its claims about sustainability. In researching my book about how we might achieve a 90 percent cut in carbon emissions by 2030, I have been discovering, greatly to my surprise, that every other source of global warming can be reduced or replaced to that degree without a serious reduction in our freedoms. But there is no means of sustaining long-distance, high-speed travel.

The industry claims it can reduce its emissions by means of new technological developments. But as the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution points out, its targets "are clearly aspirations rather than projections." There are some basic technological constraints which make major improvements impossible to envisage.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

George Monbiot is the author of 'Poisoned Arrows' and 'No Man's Land' (Green Books). Read more of his writings at Monbiot.com. This article originally appeared in the Guardian.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
world trade is built on flying
Posted by: Norb Radd on Mar 1, 2006 12:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How will all the just-in-time manufacturing adjust?
Who wants to refuse the vacations many of us take now?
Would a solution be to use space flights...or re-adjust our lifestyles?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Liquid oxygen fuel? Posted by: Bic Pentameter
» RE: world trade is built on flying Posted by: Bic Pentameter
Moderation
Posted by: anothername on Mar 1, 2006 5:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First off, remember the study after 9/11, when planes did not fly for three days? The study documented what many scientists suspected, namely that contrails have drastically reduced the differential between day and night temperatures on the ground.

As with automobiles, houses, and every other thing, the problem is how do we balance opportunity with excessive consumption. Personally, I think we should tax second homes at a very high rate because it is excessive consumption. However, communities want the tax revenue of the building without the added cost of year-round resident maintenance and individuals want the wealth association or sometimes frequent use of a second home.

Do we really need half hour flights from Boston to New York? Is it environmentally better to have airline hubs and feeder flights or to have direct flights with smaller planes? What would be the operating cost differences for the airlines and ticket prices for passengers?

We need to re-assess how we use assorted items for short vs. long distance. I find it irritating to drive long distances, trying to use the interstates, only to encounter the major highways being used as local roads at virtually every city. What would happen if we returned to having jobs near housing and stopped sprawl?

Airline travel is just another part of this puzzle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the fork in the path
Posted by: mwildfire on Mar 1, 2006 5:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Another great piece from Monbiot. I see the same thing here in West Virginia--my environmentalist friends driving big vehicles, some going off on flying vacations--almost no one who has a home has invested in solar panels. Instead, they spend a lot of time fighting the (extremely destructive) coal industry.
We need to spend much more of our time envisioning and depicting the alternative. Yes, if we continue down our current path, soon we'll have millions of displaced Bangladeshis. But Another World is Possible, if we just start putting our energies, our investments, our speech into the Soft Path. Inevitably the day is coming when there's no more jet travel. It's not only because of global warming, but also because we're about to pass the oil peak. What lies beyond the end of the oil age? It could be horror, but there is another possible world, a friendlier, healthier, slower one. Where people take long distance vacations rarely, and invest months, or even years in a trip abroad, traveling by a combination of exotic conveyances: horse, canoe, foot, sailboat, bicycle. Imagine it--a world which accomodates such fantasies. People are no longer wage slaves tied to a fifty-week-a-year grind. Young adults are expected to go on an exploratory journey, and every town takes pride in establishing a traveler's center where visitors can stay free--although they're generally expected to wash the dishes, weed the garden, and entertain the locals, especially kids, with tales of the far-off places they've been. It wouldn't be entirely a return to the past, because our electronic toys are much less energy-intensive than engines are--those kids would have an idea of what the other side of the world looks like from videos and computer screens. But nothing beats a real journey in person...and it need not be too expensive, if the accomodation is free and if you can take lots of time. This is not a vision of a poorer world than ours, but a much richer one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the fork in the path Posted by: brunowe
» RE: the fork in the path Posted by: mwildfire
» RE: the fork in the path Posted by: brunowe
Too little, too late.
Posted by: grokked on Mar 1, 2006 5:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The ugly truth is that the human species is on a way way ticket to a planet wide catastrophy.

At 52, I probably won't live to see it. But its my guess that billions of young people alive today are going to die, either as a direct result of a "heat death" climactic event. Or in the wars of desperation that will accompany it.

Such events have happened before. Twice. In the late Permian, and in the early Eocene. Look it up. All it takes is sufficient warming to release the methane gas trapped in methane hydrate ices currently buried below the oceans.

My only consolation in this is that these right wing christian assholes will not be wisked away to heaven at the last second. They are still going to be here to face the armageddon that they have done so much to facilitate, right along with all the rest of us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Too little, too late. Posted by: grokked
» RE: Too little, too late. Posted by: badkitty53
It isn't flying per se
Posted by: Jesse on Mar 1, 2006 6:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some of the problem is not flying as such, but policies that encourage the building of airports and roads at the expense of every other mode of travel.

Part of the problem with Monbiot's analysis is the assumption that the lion's share is in long-distance hauls. While there is more of that now, one of the biggest growth sectors is those short hops to minor cities, at least in the US. the biggest seller or jet fleets is not the Airbuses, but the Embraer regional jets.

For example, the rail link between Boston and New York could easily be built to accomodate more people and faster trips. I might add that fewer people fly from London to Paris precisely because the Chunnel exists-- while in the US we deal with a link that only now approaches the quality of a third-world nation. (It should be said that door to door the NYC-Boston shuttles take longer than the trains do now, because you waste an hour or more in the airport before the flight, and Amtrak is getting its act together, but they missed a HUGE opportunity after 9/11).

Other fun rail facts in the US:

The New York to Chicago train takes longer now than it did in 1960. (It's 24-30 hours now-- it used to be 18).

There is little convenient, point-to point rail service from LA to San Francisco. (The train leaves like twice a day and doesn't even offer a direct connection).

There is no local rail network to accomodate the Chicago area to do the runs between Chi-town and Madison, Gary, Indianapolis, Milwaukee and South Bend.

Nor is there a decent link from Madison to Minneapolis.

Texas? The three major cities -- Houston, Dallas and Austin-- are only now building such links, and I won't hold my breath.

All these links existed at one time, the land rights are still there, and could be refitted for the cost currently expended on expanding airports in many of these cities. All these links are currently handled primarily by air, auto and bus travel.

If the US invested in this, then the air travel that is done the most -- relatively short hops-- is eliminated.
(Contrast this with Europe, where most people take trains from Paris to Marseille, about the same distance as New York to Charlottesville, NC or LA-San Fran). Solve that problem, and a lot of other stuff follows. But it would require a serious effort and investment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Maglev trains? Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Maglev trains? Posted by: Drae
» RE: Maglev trains? Posted by: Jesse
» RE: Maglev trains? Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: Maglev trains? Posted by: nickptar
» RE: Maglev trains? Posted by: monkeywrench
» RE: It isn't flying per se Posted by: Robert Stevens
The time is right...
Posted by: Warren on Mar 1, 2006 6:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...to reintroduce zeppelins/dirigibles.

How much airline fuel is spent just keeping the damned thing up in the air? Switch to lighter-than-air travel and the cost goes dramatically down, I'm sure. Furthermore, the travel is slow enough that you don't get jetlag. Would I exchange some speed of travel for a lower price, better climatological futures, a quiet ride and no jetlag? You betcha.

And what could anyone hijack?

Warren

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The time is right... Posted by: madscribe
» RE: The time is right... Posted by: Jesse
Great!
Posted by: LynxReign on Mar 1, 2006 6:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So the only way to stop global warming is to stop flying?
Thanks for making it so simple and easy! We're doomed, there's no way that'll happen so we might as well stop trying. Time to go buy a hummer and start releasing CFCs into the atmosphere just for fun! Burn that coal. Who cares? We're doomed!
Flying isn't going to stop, you might as well as people to stop watching tv or using a microwave. Instead of nonsense like this, why not come up with plans to push for better designs in airplanes instead of just lamenting that current planes last so long?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Great! Posted by: palladas
» RE: Great! Posted by: LynxReign
» RE: Great! Posted by: Wacre
» RE: Great! Posted by: LynxReign
» get a paperbag... Posted by: decembrist
eco-fascists
Posted by: TagsNOLA on Mar 1, 2006 6:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This drivel is just the greeneis showing their true selves. If there were any doubt, Jimmy Carter's "lowered expectations" was the general public's first tip off. But the ecology wackos have always been anti-technology, anti-population growth, anti-human. Shutting down aviation is not a solution. It's just more of the technological "rolllback" of the eco-fascists who want to destroy modern society and return us to a feudalist dark age.

Long range aviation will not go away. But, many shorter range flights could be replaced by high speed maglev rail, like the link between Shanghai and its airport, built using German technology.

TagsNOLA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eco-fascists Posted by: palladas
» RE: eco-fascists Posted by: nickptar
» RE: eco-fascists Posted by: Roverton
» RE: eco-fascists Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: eco-fascists Posted by: Wacre
reregulation...but we'd need a good government to do it
Posted by: thaumaturgistguy on Mar 1, 2006 7:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Before I became more politically and environmentally aware I worked as a flight attendant for a low cost carrier. I got to travel the world and get paid to do it. It was the most exciting thing and I enjoyed it greatly. Then we declared war on Iraq. My airline participated in the charter flying contracted by the government to move troops into Kuwait...and from Kuwait into Iraq. I felt extremely conflicted. The charter flying allowed me to travel to places in the world I would probably never see even as a tourist, but the same charter flying was taking young men and women to die in a war for oil in the middle east. I managed to disassociate my feelings about it and remain emotionally distant from the troops as best as I could...but so many of them could show me scars of bullet wounds and tell me tales of friends who we took over...but weren't bringing back.

I got laid off from that job about a year ago because the airline went into bankruptcy. It was hard, but I was secretly glad that I wouldn't be an employee of a corporation that was assisting a government enacting imperialist wars. Now if given the opportunity to return I would not take it and I much prefer trains to planes...but our train infrastructure is pretty pathetic. If the government reregulated the airline industry it would stop the rampant price wars between the airlines and return some kind of balance to the industry. (and preferably few airlines and fewer flights) Then if we could link up the train system to the major airports we could have a much less wasteful system. (ie fly from LA to Chicago...hop on amtrak at O'hare and take the train to kentucky...or something like that). It is not an ideal soloution, but it is more feasible perhaps than dumping the airline industry altogether and spending too much too late on a crippled rail system. Of course peak oil might make trains our only option......

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» ecofascists? Posted by: rickcreswell@yahoo.com
» RE: ecofascists? Posted by: Wacre
» RE: ecofascists? Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: ecofascists? Posted by: nickptar
» the hell? Posted by: thaumaturgistguy
Yes the Maglev!
Posted by: jpinder on Mar 1, 2006 7:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For continental city to city travel the only available alternative is the Maglev train. 500kmh/310mph (even faster trains on the drawing board). These trains can be used between cities, they are quiet, efficient and vastly safer. The only time air travel should be used would be to cross large expanses of water and remote locations. As a pilot I am very curious to find out what alternative fuels will be used to power turbine engines, I also rhetorically ask why aircraft manufacturers are building larger and faster planes? When fuel would have the cost of traveling be so high that once again only the wealthy folks will be able to afford. As in the previous comment, the current trend in aviation will not change (I can bet my life on it), especially with the new light jets, which will be in service 2006-2007, thousands already sold. For those who thought you lived around a quiet small airport will soon be awaken by this new air traffic. About global warming, it's already too late too reverse the damage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Problems with this column...
Posted by: QuestionAuthority on Mar 1, 2006 8:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been in the airline industry for 25 years, and there are a few misconceptions in this column. The author is using the "Throw the baby out with the bathwater" approach, which is ineffective and counterproductive.

1) The modern, more efficient engines are actually quieter than the older engines. If you don't believe me, listen to a Boeing 777 and then compare it to an old Boeing 707, DC-8, or DC-9 (Not an MD-80/90). The turboJET was noisy, inefficient, and a major polluter. The turboFAN is much better all around.

2) Instead of cutting flying down, perhaps we should consider adding substances to increase the albedo and staying power of the contrails (research needed). After all, a contrail actually is mostly water vapor, which reflects sunlight. Perhaps we can use the high-altitude "spreading" of these clouds by aircraft to mitigate some of the global warming. (Not my idea. It's Kim Stanley Robinson's from his SF series on global climate change.)

Global air tranportation is here to stay. We have to find ways to limit the impact it has on climate, not eliminate it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It's easy Posted by: nickptar
Global air travel is most likely here to stay
Posted by: CrystalD on Mar 1, 2006 8:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I really don't think we are going to be able to stop travelling by air. Perhaps we can cut down, but stop? No. Not only is our global trade system dependent on it, so are people who have emigrated to other countries and want to see their families. I'm sure even Monbiot wouldn't have the heart to tell someone, "If you emigrate to a distant country, tough luck, you'll never see your family again."

I'm sure Monbiot is a lot of fun at parties, "confronting" his friends about their travel plans. Nobody likes an in-your-face do-gooder. Unfortunately, a lot of mainstream folks have come to associate such doomsaying and for-your-own-good finger-wagging with environmentalism, and it doesn't help the cause. Monbiot is most likely preaching to the fringie choir, and everyone else is rolling their eyes and saying "oh puh-leeze." If the environmental movement is to succeed it is going to have to appeal to the mainstream, and this article does not help.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Warren has a point...
Posted by: QuestionAuthority on Mar 1, 2006 8:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Warren has a good point about lighter-than-air (LTA) aircraft. For long-range freight hauling (one example), LTA is a great idea. Remember though, they are much more fragile and subject to damage/destruction in bad weather.

There has been considerable research done on the idea, and I fully support it. It won't work for urgent travel, but would be great for purposes where speed is not essential. It's also a wonderful idea for extremely bulky and/or heavy items.

As far as lift is concerned, the fuel burned in the engines creates thrust, which enables the air flowing over the wings to create lift. So, it's a misconception to think of 'all that fuel going to keep it up there.' That's not quite how it all works.

Besides, zepplins are awesome things to watch and have a beauty in and of themselves. They also are a more relaxed way to travel, which can olny be beneficial in this over-hurried world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

rover
Posted by: Roverton on Mar 1, 2006 8:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A zep would be fun. Instead of the Concorde, there would be the high speed model that would go almost 200 mph! We'd have to plan last minute flights weeks in advance though...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

transportation of food should stop first, people last
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Mar 1, 2006 8:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nice article. However, I think that local production of food is closer to the bone. We need to stop transporting bananas from Ecuador to the US for 'consumer convenience', for example. This means an end to 'globalization' of basic commodities. This doesn't necessarily apply to high tech devices, as we don't expect small towns to start manufacturing their own computers. Local production of basic necessities (food, water, shelter, clothing, electricity, fuel) is the only way out of this. In the face of global corporate attempts to control water and food production (via privatization of water supplies and patenting of GM plants) organized resistance is necessary. We should have a global flow of information and high-end technology (such as solar panels and wind turbines). If this means you can't get bananas outide of tropical countries, that's just too bad. The vested interests in fossil fuels, electricity and agriculture will no doubt do their utmost to retain control, as they have been doing for the past century. I think people should be able to travel, but perhaps once a year? would be appropriate.

In the final analysis, this means the end of corporate - consumer culture as we know it. Corporate consumer culture is one of the lowest and most degenerate cultures to have arisen on the planet since the beginning of recorded history. Good riddance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

War of the Worlds
Posted by: monkeywrench on Mar 1, 2006 8:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't worry; there is a little-understood group of hitchhikers on international air routes whose numbers are growing and who eventually will drastically reduce the number of flights, and the number of people who are able to fly, or do much of anything else: diseases.

Thanks to rapid air travel, we are turning the entire planet into a bacterial, viral and fungal petri dish – and we're all swimming in it. Throughout history, one of Mother Nature's population limiters has been disease; but back then outbreaks had been local. Now, pathogens can vacation anywhere they want in the world – and global warming will even make things comfy in the upper latitudes for some really nasty bugs from the tropics. Humans are not as all-powerful as we make ourselves believe, so will Nature once again humble us by culling our herd?

Stand by. And wash your hands before you touch yourself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» So we deserve it? Posted by: nickptar
Peak Oil
Posted by: ScottP on Mar 1, 2006 9:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I noticed this mentioned in a couple of other comments, but peak oil is the factor that will stop the air travel in its tracks. Air travel will remain affordable for the very rich, and others for rare and special use, more like it was in decades past. Those fools who expand airports today will be sitting on white elephants in a few years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Peak Oil Posted by: smccaw
A "Mad Max" future? Hold on, it's a-comin', folks.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Mar 1, 2006 9:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe all of us should just let the whole damn mess fall apart, and spend our time preparing our communities for the post-apocalyptic chaos. What with Western governments now showing utter disregard for ordinary (say:"not wealthy contributors") humans, and people being too distracted by cheap junk at the -Mart stores, or by techno-baubles, bling and TV trash – or maybe just feeling helpless – we seem to be heading hell-bent-for-leather toward that abyss anyway. Without a meaningful counter-movement coming directly from The People, we might as well get ready for the inevitable. Myself being a child of the space program, science fiction, and the '60's, a time when anything seemed possible, our current situation makes me sad, and it makes me angry; but it also makes me a realist – although I pray that I'm wrong. . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One of many
Posted by: hkc on Mar 1, 2006 9:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author's suggestion that flying is a major source of global warming may be true but there are lots of other ways to improve the situation and there may be ways to mitigate the harm of flying.
If China could replace the millions of tons of carbon pollution that it pours into the atmosphere every year I'm sure that it would have a bigger impact than all of flying. If India, China and Mexico could improve their air pollution it might be enough to turn the tide.

My point is that it is comfortable for many people to point the finger at the rich world for its evil ways but one visit to most of the third world will show that there is nothing worse for the environment than poverty and totalitarianism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: One of many Posted by: mwildfire
Scare piece
Posted by: lamar on Mar 1, 2006 10:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Stop flying airplanes" isn't a solution, its a scare tactic. How about piston planes? Turbo-props? How about turbojets vs. turbofans? How about the emissions of one plane full of 200 people vs. 200 automobiles going to the same place? Though interesting, this is a poorly researched scare piece.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

candlelight and mule power
Posted by: zooeyhall on Mar 1, 2006 10:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unfortunately, this article, like so many "progressive" environmental articles, proposes a riduculous solution. The answer is not to return, as the author suggests, to some imagined idyllic pre-industrial paradise of candlelight and mule power. It lies in determing and finding new solutions that maintain the standard of living and preserving progress, while addressing the issues of social and economic inequality, along with environmental consequences.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Airline Contribution to Green House Effect
Posted by: mgranat on Mar 1, 2006 10:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Finally someone is addressing how the airlines are enhancing the Green House problem. It is a well known fact that carbon dioide
is absorbed by vegetation and water. Thousands of aircraft, commercial and military are in flight, worldwide, 24/7. At near stratosphere heights, how are those toxic emissions absorbed? It is a problem that is only going to get worse as the proliferation of aircraft continues. We will need some good heads on this one

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Chemtrails
Posted by: saywhat on Mar 1, 2006 11:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What about the chemtrails over the U.S. ? Why doesn’t anyone talk about the poison put in the sky by the U.S. government? Today in Taos, New Mexico, the sky is crossed by hundreds of chemical trails. Does anybody know ? Does anybody care?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Chemtrails Posted by: QuestionAuthority
» RE: Chemtrails Posted by: saywhat
» RE: Chemtrails Posted by: nickptar
» RE: Chemtrails Posted by: saywhat
» RE: Chemtrails Posted by: jobloe
» RE: Chemtrails Posted by: saywhat
» RE: Chemtrails Posted by: jobloe
Absurdism
Posted by: blackkatanas on Mar 1, 2006 11:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is one of the most absurd stories I've ever read on Alternet. Apart from the fact that it is potentially factually incorrect (see the study on contrails and global dimming produced after the 9/11 grounding of planes, which was also mentioned previously by a commenter), the suggestion that airplane travel should be halted is regressive, undermines the concept of a global economy and is a completely unrealistic goal in the modern world.

I read Alternet daily, and rarely do I read such drivel on this site. It is unfortunate that, alongside practical, realistic articles such as those written by advocates of renewable energy and environmentally friendly proposals, we get fanciful, alarmist and completely infeasible "suggestions" such as banning airplanes.

With regard to the commenter who mentioned reintroducing dirigibles, read this CNN article here: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/02/16/aeroscraft/index.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Absurdism Posted by: ravengrrrl
» RE: Absurdism Posted by: blackkatanas
» RE: Absurdism Posted by: Warren
» RE: Absurdism Posted by: blackkatanas
» RE: Absurdism Posted by: Warren
Not all that new...
Posted by: QuestionAuthority on Mar 1, 2006 1:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bringing back LTA aircraft has been around at least since the Oil Embargo of the 1970's. Remember, the mass media are the last ones to find out about stuff like this. It's in the aviation industry press YEARS before they hear of it. ;-)

Personally, I'd love to see it happen...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bigger planes...
Posted by: QuestionAuthority on Mar 1, 2006 1:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only way to make money (or even break even) with an airplane is to put more "butts in seats" as fuel prices rise. It's simple economics. That explains the A380 (The WhaleJet, as we jokingly call it) quite well. Forget Airbus's promo pictures with all the luxury hotel gimmicks. Boeing used to have the same pictures of the 747 in the late 1960's. Seen an upstairs cocktail lounge lately? ;-)

Faster planes? Where? Only the military. Concorde is dead, a beautiful but totally impractical aircraft. All the newest commercial aircraft are subsonic..they top out at about Mach .90 or so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A slower world, please
Posted by: Mettalaw on Mar 1, 2006 3:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for your vision, mwildfire, which articulates my own.
I also remember reading about how speedy shipping of world goods on pallets, particularly used tires with their leftover puddles of water inside, is transferring unwelcome flora and fauna everywhere and contributing substantially to eco-devastation, because little beasts can survive fast trips and infest a new venue. Human beings are not the only critters who should not travel so fast.

I recently flew to India for a month's course. It took over fifty hours each way--fifty hours very hard on my aging body--and several days to recover from jet lag. I would much have preferred surface travel, especially since my Hawaii home is much closer to India than my fellow-students were. But there is no choice in our stupid world. Surface travel would consume too much working time, even if it were available.

We have to embark on a vast re-think to reduce air travel. I agree that luxury travel--tourism--must be a thing of the past. Travel must be justified by a purpose or excused by a method that outweighs the ecological cost.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A slower world, please Posted by: smccaw
» Absolutely not... Posted by: brunowe
absurdity
Posted by: mwildfire on Mar 1, 2006 8:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that's the word that keeps recurring in responses here...stop air travel? It would be inconvenient! It's impossible! Some technofix will solve all the problems--we couldn't possibly slow down. Drivel! Absurdity!
Forty years from now, someone much younger than you will ask you why you did nothing to stop the enormous devastation caused by global climate change and the relentless destruction of the incredible biological wealth derived from billions of years of evolution. You will tell this person that you had no idea that the problem was so serious, and they will show you old news accounts from way back in the Twentieth century, talking about all these problems.
"Well, yes, we KNEW," you will say, "but we didn't take it seriously, we didn't understand, it seemed at the time that there were more important things, like--I don't know, TV shows and our jobs and---you just don't understand, you weren't there." And they won't understand. Some have called this a hallucinatory culture. How will you explain that, once the hallucinations have passed, standing there in a ravaged, severely impoverished world next to a young person showing you an ancient National Geographic which has one article about the threat of global warming among many showing the beautiful, rich world of 2005? Perhaps you'll point to the ads, and try to explain the effect they had.
But the young person will not understand.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: absurdity Posted by: TagsNOLA
Flying is Dying
Posted by: sidewinder on Mar 1, 2006 8:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course, you can prove all this!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It made a difference...
Posted by: dirkster42 on Mar 1, 2006 11:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was actually logging on to book a San Francisco-Los Angeles flight when I read this article. Decided to take Greyhound instead.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Peak Oil and Air Travel
Posted by: NYRugby on Mar 2, 2006 8:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So I'm reading this article and see figures projected to 2070. Now, I'm wondering after reading articles about peak oil, whether or not we should really be projecting figures to 2070. Seems to me that by then we'll be well beyond air travel for anything besides military activities or the uber-rich, as no one will have the financial resources by then to consume that much of the dregs of our petroleum resources in order to travel.

Whether or not the environmental catastophe at the point will be total or irreversible is still an unknown...but I don't think we have to worry about the airlines for too many more decades.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

bash those polluting foreigners
Posted by: janakiblum on Mar 2, 2006 10:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Two thirds of the carbon emissions from fossil fuel combustion are produced by just 10 countries. The United States, with only 5 percent of the world’s population, has been the largest contributor, accounting for nearly one quarter of global emissions. China is second, with more than 1/5th of world population, has only now overtaken the USA. Other major polluters are Russia, Japan, India, and Germany.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Contrails also destroy ground-based astronomy
Posted by: secretchief on Mar 2, 2006 2:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Read this interesting BBC article about the end of ground-based astronomy. Telescopes hate cloud cover as much as photosynthesizing plants!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4755996.stm

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Time to actually use or brains
Posted by: AheadOfMyTime on Mar 2, 2006 6:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have watched engineers 'design' new trains and planes for years, but can't help thinking that they are just plagiarising old designs, not creating anything new, busily climbing the staircase of knowledge refusing to discard the previous ideas and techniques as they try to tack on new technology and materials to old ideas.
Take trains for example - is it efficient to transport an engine and fuel from NY to LA?
As for maglev, since when do we need a magnet to defy gravity? Isn't the object ot overcome friction? not carry a bunch of magnets around?
Planes - commercial travel occurs at subsonic speed so is there really any need to get such height. Only because those engines make so much noise that no -one would want them close to the ground.
Are you getting my drift??
I once had lunch with the famous Sir Mark Oliphant, an Australian - better known as the lead developer of the ATOM bomb. Not his proudest achievement. His real love was solar power and he was one of the first scientists to promote solar energy research. Over lunch he scribbled on a napkin and showed me how an inhospitable area of the country could provide enough power for the cities. This was the 1970's - It stuck with me.
After quitting a robotics company I decided to spend my leisure time thinking it. The only flaw in his theory was the storage and transportation of the energy to where it was most in demand, you need some sort of power grid and the losses over distance are substantial.
I thought why not combine energy gathering from the sun and a grid? Why not make the grid the track for a rapid transit system, after all it had to connect to the cities to deliver the power. Why not use some of the electricity you create to power the transit system? Why not make it light, and also reduce the number of passengers so that we don't have to wait for the 6 o'clock Boston train, just make the carriages small and let em go when enough people jump on? I reiterate - we don't want to transport engines back and forth - just people and luggage. So if we have electricity and a 'track' we don't want to wear the track out or damage the solar collectors do we? What we want is to fly above the track, so I came up with a very high speed mass transit system with only two parts.
A unit of track (they're all the same} which includes solar collectors on it's surface and
A single carriage - no motors, just a shell with seats and other comforts.
Embedded in the track are magnets - not to levitate the train, but to pull it along!
Design the carriage so that it flies due to the ground effect once it reaches a certain speed. Hey presto - just like a plane but much more efficient.
You can work out how fast it could go and how silent it would be and how little resources it would consume. Keep the carriage size to a minimum - say bus size and you don't need very powerful magnets. The only place it touches the ground is when it gets into the station to let the people out.
Is this too far fetched for you?
Anyone with a pocket full of money could whip one up in no time. The running cost would be minimal and I calculated it would be dollars for a transcontinental ticket - not hundreds of dollars and there would be NO POLLUTION - no fuel.
I did some calculations as to cost to make a loop around the US and it came out at 88 billion dollars, but the only ongoing expenses would be to pay a driver to hold the dead man stick while computers and radar did the rest. More employment and less cost. I know you will ask- but what about night time? well I think I'll choose safe, silent, comfortable pollution free daytime travel for a few dollars over noisy, cramped, expensive and somewhat more dangerous air travel anytime. The rtrain passenger would arrive first every time. Anyone with me?
.... my solar plane is another matter....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» High speed cheap transportation Posted by: AheadOfMyTime
Very true but ....
Posted by: mkininmonth on Mar 3, 2006 8:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I whole heartedly agree with you in principle but I just think that a practical solution as drastic as that is not really attainable.

I have long felt guilty for my flying but, as my family live in North America and I live in the UK it has been unavoidable unless I choose to take a boat and use up all my holidays getting there and back. However, to try and couneract this I have tried to holiday with the UK.

However I am digressing, there is a simple way to try and reverse the increase you talk about in airline travel. Persuade the governments to either tax airlines on fuel or give the same tax breaks to other public reansport. In the UK all avaiation (as far as I am aware) does not attract VAT currently at 17.5 %. By simple economics, increasing flights by a minimum of 17.5 % this should reduce passenger traffic. I would hope it would hit the low cost airlines hardest and, if these tax breaks were transferred to rail, then these passangers may be persuaded to think twice about whimsical air travel. I am sure there are many, many tax breaks to airlines which could be questioned making air travel less and less economical to the masses. it won't affect the rich though but they are not the majority it's the majority who should be persuaded to think twice about whimisical weekend breaks by plane.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

planes, trains, and automobiles
Posted by: antiapathy on Mar 5, 2006 8:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the airline industry pisses me off to no end. and they don't care. they know they are the only game in town. And the US government has no spine in terms of standing up to them. We literally throw money at them as they pollute the planet and lay off workers and cut pensions and make us wait for canceled flights and make us take our shoes off.

We could have such a better transit system in this country. There is so much potential. Just imagine how many jobs would be needed to create and maintain a new high-speed rail network. They would be just as fast, if not faster than air planes. No sitting in the runway for half an hour prior to take-off. They couldn't be hi-jacked by terrorist. And they could be powered with renewable energy sources. And if they government produces the infrastructure (and stops subsidizing airlines and sprawl-inducing highways) the high speed rail network would actually be competitive.

But no, our Congress would never dare think outside the box and emark on a bold new program to help our economy and environment. And the people will never demand it. They don't care. We have the power to demand change, but we have to demand it, and not just sit here and bitch about it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rail efficiency and overall way of life
Posted by: truthteller on Mar 6, 2006 10:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been in the rail debate for almost 30 years now, both as an advocate and railroad employee. The case has been well made that rail travel is the most efficient way to travel. The problem(s) is that our Country is not currently organized to use rail travel in any large-scale way. I'm afraid it's going to take a great deal of pain for any real change to come about.

You will never carry significant numbers of people by rail with only the one train per day frequencies that Amtrak currently serves most of it's communities with. So, right off the bat, you need to double the number of trains on each route so that every stop will have at least one daylight departure.

Second, maglev is an incredibly energy intensive way to move people by rail. If you can compete effectively with car travel times over most travel routes, you can pursuade a significant number of people to change the way they travel. Increasing fuel prices will help push the public in that direction, but they have to have reasonable choices. (Washington, DC to Cleveland in nearly 12 hours with a 3 am arrival time in Cleveland is not a reasonable choice).

The real solution in the long run is nationalizing the railroad rights-of-way and allowing any company, including Amtrak, that can meet Federal standards to operate trains over them.

When you have railroads like CSX and Union Pacific actively working to kill Amtrak, you will never be able to operate an efficient or desireable system. For example, the old Baltimore and Ohio line between Martinsburg, WV and Pittsburgh continues to be downgraded by CSX in terms of maximum track speed and condition. Served by only one Amtrak train per day (nos. 29 & 30, The Capital Ltd.), and used mostly by freight trains that are not so time-sensitive, it doesn't make a lot of sense to maintain the track to a high passenger train speed standard. This is just one instance of the basic conflict between the freight railroad's profits and the needs of a viable passenger network. Some say that we need totally new rights-of-way for passengers, but with the modern attitudes of the "Not in my Backyard" crowd, this is unlikely to happen. Adding an extra track or two to most current routes would solve many of the travel time problems. Since many routes were originally built with multiple tracks, this would be the path of least resistance.

Indeed, one prime example of this is Virginia's on-going work with CSX to expand the number of tracks between Alexandria and Richmond, VA to three tracks the entire distance. (CSX had previously tried to kill VA's commuter passenger train service early in it's existance.) It also corrects one of the dumbest money-saving moves ever made by a major railroad - the single-tracking of the Quantico Creek trestle about 15 years ago when CSX took over the former Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac RR (a profitable, well-run, bridge route that just happened to own some of the most valuable real estate on the East Coast). This bottleneck has cost many times the savings in building a single-track bridge, in crew overtime and extra fuel costs for idling locomotives. When finished, this will result in significant improvements in operational efficiency and more reliable travel times for both freight and passenger trains. Currently, the railroad is dispatched with fingers crossed during the morning and evening rush hours. One significant delay or breakdown of any train throws the entire line out of wack for hours, resulting in major delays for both freight and passenger trains. This does not help to encourage people to leave their cars for the rail option, nor does it make CSX more likely to want more passenger trains on it's line.

While public/private partnerships like this work to a limited extent, the only way the system can be fixed in the long-run is by public ownership of the rails.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is one form of air travel that doesn't pollute
Posted by: gliderpilot on Nov 7, 2006 4:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...I'm talking about gliding of course. No emissions, no noise. for me, the only way to fly, at one with the clouds. Gliders can stay airborne for hours as long as you have thermals and the wind on your side. Wouldn't it be possible to make short haul flights, say from the UK to France using big, passenger carrying gliders, obviously not carrying as many passengers as a big airliner, but still, I think gliding is one idea to develop further.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]