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

Saying Goodbye to Cheap Airfare

By Gregory Lamb, Christian Science Monitor. Posted February 14, 2007.


If we don't find alternative jet fuels soon, air travel will become limited to the ultra wealthy.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Just a few decades from now, people may look back at the early 21st century with both fondness and horror as the Era of the Cheap Airline Flight. They may wax nostalgic for the days when visiting distant relatives and taking vacations in exotic locales were easily affordable for the masses. But they also may be alarmed at how long it took the world to realize the havoc that unfettered air travel was wreaking on the world's climate.

At least one travel industry official predicts that in 30 years, long-distance flying will be undertaken only by the wealthy as ticket prices rise dramatically -- and the number of flights shrinks proportionately -- to curb the emissions of greenhouse gases created by air travel.

Jet engines burn kerosene, which gives off carbon dioxide (CO2), a leading cause of global warming. Airline flights today make up less than 3 percent of man-made CO2 emissions, though they also spew nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, soot, and water vapor that may double their total warming effect on the climate.

Now two factors are conspiring to make airline travel a hot topic in the global-warming debate: If current trends continue, the number of airline tickets sold per year will double to more than 9 billion by 2025, according to a new study by the Airports Council International. At the same time, experts see no viable jet-fuel alternative to kerosene. While some modest fuel-conservation measures still can be taken, more and more people are concluding that fewer flights may be the only way to cut airline emissions significantly.

In Britain, a prosperous island country that makes heavy use of air travel, CO2 emissions from flights will surpass those from automobile trips in the next six to eight years, says Alice Bows, a senior research fellow at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Manchester.

Four years ago, the British government pledged to cut greenhouse-gas emissions by 60 percent by midcentury. As the difficulty in achieving that goal has become more evident, air travel has become the whipping boy for environmentalists. Prime Minister Tony Blair was criticized for flying to Miami for a Christmas holiday, and Prince Charles was viewed as a hypocrite for boarding a jet to Philadelphia to accept an environmental award. Last summer, the Bishop of London, Richard Chartres, called taking a vacation by airline "a symptom of sin" in which "people ignore the consequences of their actions." The bishop vowed he would not board an airplane in 2007.

Asking the British people to cut down on air travel is impractical, Mr. Blair says. But the government has just upped a tax on airline flights from £10 to £40 ($19 to $76), depending on the length of the flight, in the name of reducing air travel and CO2 emissions.

For years, airline companies have worked to increase fuel efficiency (and coincidentally reduce CO2 emissions) to counter the skyrocketing price of kerosene. New aircraft, such as Boeing's 787 Dreamliner due out in the summer of 2008, will be made of lighter composite materials and employ other fuel-saving measures. But these improvements won't be nearly enough to offset the predicted increase in demand for air travel (including air freight).


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

See more stories tagged with: travel, global warming, co2, airplanes, fuel

Gregory Lamb is a staff writer for The Christian Science Monitor.

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:
This really sucks!
Posted by: jimbobuddy on Feb 14, 2007 1:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a private pilot ,I've been thinking about this issue for several years. Flying(yourself) is one of the most glorious manifestations of personal freedom that there could possibly be. But I've come to the same conclusion as the author based simply on the economics of fuelcosts. Since we are at ,or near peak global oil production the cost of retrieving the oil that's still in the ground cannot help but rise. The rapid emergence of China, and India add a huge, and unrelenting demand side push on prices for the foreseeable future. There is no liquid fuel that can replace kerosine ,or gasoline anytime soon. If the entire U S corn crop were converted into ethanol( something which jet engines cant burn), it could contribute only 25% of this nation's fuel needs. I wish I could find something in the future to be optimistic about, but I'm afraid that this will be a very bland and desperate world, great of tooth, and claw. I need more sleep.

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

» RE: This really sucks! Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: If Flying is Your Thing Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: If Flying is Your Thing Posted by: Logic's Edge
» Life's a gas Posted by: panthercat
If everyone had the same credits to pollute it wouldn't matter
Posted by: godsouza on Feb 14, 2007 4:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Contraction_and_Convergence
http://tinyurl.com/29txr5
see the video.

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

Tell me again...
Posted by: karyse on Feb 14, 2007 4:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
why we can't go back to hydrogen or helium dirigibles? Oh, yeah oil companies.

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

» RE: Tell me again... Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» RE: Tell me again... Posted by: Daves not here man
» RE: Tell me again... Posted by: jmp3954
If the author had even done his research, he'd realize the need to legalize HEMP for fuel.
Posted by: maxpayne on Feb 14, 2007 6:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
HEMP replaces oil all the way but the fake "war on drugs" which is long lost is what keeps BIG OIL happy. Another idiotic doom and gloom article !

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

flying and food
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Feb 14, 2007 6:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article did mention air cargo and so much air cargo is food. The global trade in perishable food will be severely diminished. No more Chilean strawberries for San Franciscans in December.
If Global Warming and Peak Oil doomsday scenarios come to pass (and I believe they will), we need to educate an entire planet in sustainable gardening so we can grow our own produce locally. I worked for American Airlines for many years. I sure do miss those 25.00 First Class flights from California to New York every weekend. The United States needs to build high speed rail that runs on magnets or solar , etc...if we are going to have any kind of long-distance trade/travel in the future.

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

piston-engines?
Posted by: Benjaminsjw on Feb 14, 2007 7:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem seems to be that it's not easy to run jet-engines on bio-fuel. But I doubt if the same holds true for piston-engines. Air traffic would of course become slightly slower that way, but not impossible. And trans-continental rail travel would become more of a competitor, further reducing the demand for air travel.

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

I don't think tourism is the only problem.
Posted by: phatkhat on Feb 14, 2007 7:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many people fly off for vacations, but what is the alternative? If you are, as I am, majorly afraid of flying (a co-worker was killed at Lockerbie, and I've had no appetite for it since), you DO find alternatives.

Rail travel is certainly one alternative, and shame on us for giving it up. Trans-oceanic travel via steamship is certainly an alternative. The only problem with these more leisurely and romantic modes of travel is our "time is money" culture. I know people who fly from Little Rock to St. Louis or Dallas or New Orleans - or even MEMPHIS, fer cryin' out loud. Short hauls like this would be much better undertaken by bus or rail, but we have no buses anymore, either.

As one poster pointed out, we use jets to transport highly perishable food in huge quantities. At what cost? And then, in the end, if you are truly honest, those $6/lb cherries from Chile, or the $7/lb apricots from Argentina taste... like... well, papier mache. Why bother? It wastes money on both ends! The only fruits I can think of that still taste good after long transport are pineapples and bananas, both shipped green, and having long shelf life in that condition. They ripen well, but the same cannot be said for most fruit.

But I'll be willing to bet that at least 75% of air travel is undertaken by business people. If videoconferencing and teleconferencing were substituted, think how much fuel would be saved! But who wants - including, evidently, the author of the article - to step heavily on the toes of BUSINESS??? As anyone who's ever worked for a major company or the government knows, travel is one of the most desirable perks.

And how much waste is on the government side? Tony Blair flew on a commercial aircraft for vacation, but I guarantee that Smirkey would never even give it a thought!

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

» Hear hear! Posted by: boygranddakar
That means no more summer trips to England.
Posted by: Jkid4x on Feb 14, 2007 7:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I first heard of the words "air travel will become limited to the ultra wealthy", that's means my dreams to going to England or Tokyo to travel to see for myself will be dashed forever, either unless I'm rich or someone builds a ship that is compete with the airplane. What we need to do is to limit airplane travel to destinations beyond 500km/miles. Legalize hemp to gradually replace fossil fuels. Finally rapidly expand railway transit.

But again, don't expect the Republicrat Congress to do anything, they don't have the political willpower.

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

» Freighter ships really are an option, even now Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
National Association of Railroad Passengers
Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma on Feb 14, 2007 7:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
www.narprail.org

Passenger airlines have NEVER made a profit, "since Kitty Hawk" says the arch-con George Will. The $15 billion federal bailout after 9/11, itself was more than all the paper "profit" airlines claimed since 1938. Airports are all built with government money, etc etc etc. Yet "conservatives" are still whining about Amtrak and commuter rail.

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

» It's a double standard, that's all Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» RE: It's a double standard, that's all Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: It's a double standard, that's all Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
Captive workers, Free Capital and Elite Overlords
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Feb 14, 2007 7:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Currently the Elite still have great advantages (no customs, no standing in line, no security gropings) at airports but soon, as the article implies, the only free (or cheap) movement will be of money and the uber-rich. Of course, this is their plan. They want "free trade", no taxes/regulations of moving capital, and no emcumbrances for themselves to fly around. But the 'little people' as Leona Hemsley called them don't deserve that right. Remember one of the first "jim crow" laws against blacks was, in addition to anti-firearm ownership, was to outlaw travel. The only free movement the elites will allow is mass emigration by illegal means into Europe and America and ONLY in order to destroy the middle-class and to lower wages so that they can consolidate power.

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

Sacrifice for the rich, I think not
Posted by: now is the time on Feb 14, 2007 8:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm currently reading George Monbiot's book Heat: How to Stop the World From Burning and it certainly is challenging me to think about what I/we need to be doing to practically confront global warming. His chapter on flying, which really examines some of the technological options mentioned in the article, isn't hopeful on this front. From biofuels clouding (and potentially jamming the engine) at high temperatures to the ineffeciency of cruise ships, fast, long distance travel (especially overseas travel) seems like something we will need to save for emergencies.

And I'm sorry, but I'm also not prepared to have the climate destroyed so the ultra-rich can commute to their summer homes.

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

A gift in disguise
Posted by: solacel on Feb 14, 2007 8:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When air transportation becomes financially un-feasible for the masses, we will FINALLY join the rest of the modern world in creating a rail system that actually works - and makes enough profit to be self-supporting. The railroads were 'railroaded' by big oil and the US government when it became entranced with the profit margin of air travel.
And yes you CAN still go to Europe. They have these things called 'ships' that actually FLOAT ON WATER! How cool is that?
Airlines? Good riddance to an industry that has bloated itself out of existance. Maybe when they have lost their monopoly and shrunk to a realistic size, the air travel industry will find a way to remain viable.

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

» RE: A gift in disguise Posted by: Benjaminsjw
» RE: A gift in disguise Posted by: jmp3954
» RE: A gift in disguise Posted by: ataraxia
kneedeepinice
Posted by: kneedeepinice on Feb 14, 2007 8:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cheap airtravel is not a "right"! Air fares have been WAY too low for so long we have become accustomed to them. Next time you book a flight, ask yourself how much the alternative e.g. driving, taking a boat, riding a bike, walking . . . would cost. It should be a luxury!
One thing all airlines could do to decrease fuel cost is stop painting aircraft.

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

» It cost peanuts Posted by: edith
» RE: "It cost peanuts" Posted by: ataraxia
Vacationing at home versus cheap aviation
Posted by: roberto1980 on Feb 14, 2007 8:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's a crazy idea: Maybe if our home communities weren't so oriented towards automobility, if North America wasn't an alienating landscape of K-Marts, parking lots and 12-lane highways, then maybe we wouldn't feel the overwhelming urge to get away from it all for a week or two of respite on some southern beach.

Maybe if we made Canadian and US communities a little greener, a little healthier, a little more culturally interesting by supporting artists, maybe we would actually want to spend our vacation IN town instead of fleeing it!

Maybe if we preserved and restored our national parks and invested in world class high-speed rail to bring us to these reserves then maybe we would get to know the varied natural wonders of our OWN vast continent.

So instead of lamenting the end of cheap aviation and spending our precious time and resources on developing a substitute for kerosene, let's think about living and vacationing a little more locally.

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

Back to the beginning
Posted by: Leadbyexample on Feb 14, 2007 8:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The railroads are what tied the east to the west in the U.S. The settlement of much of the great plains was because the railroad was going through, as was the case where I grew up in the SE Red River Valley. The incorporation of towns coincided with the arrival of the railroad, this was the only reliable link of the rural areas to the cities. As a kid, we would take the train to visit relatives in Minneapolis, a distance of about 200 miles. This was quite an adventure and the train stopped in our small town and virtually every small town along the way. This all ended when the Interstate Highway System was built as this also went right by our small town. I would say passenger train travel might have been profitable up to this point, but once the Interstate was built, few people used the train.

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

» RE: Back to the beginning Posted by: jmp3954
» RE: Back to the beginning Posted by: Leadbyexample
Burning stuff
Posted by: willymack on Feb 14, 2007 9:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is ANYONE in the world doing research on alternatives to combustion for power and propulsion? The end of the dominance of Big Oil is in sight. Coal is NOT an alternative, nor is alcohol, salad oil used as biodiesel, or combustible products derived from vegetable matter. They're all either too expensive, too dirty, or too limited to maintain our profligate lifestyle. Or maybe we should just slow down and walk and use bicycles more as we mull over the problem.

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

» RE: Burning stuff Posted by: Benjaminsjw
» RE: Burning stuff Posted by: roberto1980
» RE: Burning stuff Posted by: Logic's Edge
Good Riddance
Posted by: Gaubladt on Feb 14, 2007 10:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who needs air travel anyway. Trains are a lot healthier.

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

» But try taking a train to Europe. Posted by: spacecadet
» Its called a boat Posted by: roberto1980
» RE: Good Riddance Posted by: edith
Can You Say Warren Buffet and NetJets
Posted by: ghunter on Feb 14, 2007 11:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have been wondering about this for awhile as we have seen the rise in corporatr airline travel, which reduces the ticket purchases on domestic carriers which would help; defray the cost for the other passengers. Warren has consistently talked about the inequality of the tax code, but he is not stupid. He knows the elite will either not care or justify the use of these specialized air services and that is why he purchased Netjets.

Take your trips, now, burn the fuel and enjoy the memories. Local story telling will one day dominate life again and people need to have the experiences so we can describe how we sqandered a great resource to fly among the clouds only to realize we were just Icaris all along.

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

» Icarus indeed Posted by: roberto1980
» And they'll wonder about Posted by: Krain61
HEMP!
Posted by: wireup on Feb 14, 2007 12:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the above posters talked about HEMP as a replacement for oil. I never heard of this before.

Well, I just googled HEMP FUEL and what a bonanza. Apparently, if growing HEMP was legal we could solve our energy problems!!!!!!

But no. The oil companies are opposed and so, therefore, is King George.

What a miserable miserable miserable shame! No more Mid East wars, no more pollution.

I would guess that most Congressmen and Senators know nothing about this. Let's start bombarding Congress with information on this. It's worth a shot, don't you think?

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

We need to get a grip.
Posted by: badgercabs on Feb 14, 2007 1:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live in England. An island. if I want to get to mainland Europe I have a choice. I can fly, or I can drive, or I can get a train. The plane I board probably holds 150+ passengers. My car will hold 4 and it will probably only be me in the car. So, let's consider whether all 149 of my co-passengers driving the same journey in their individual cars will cause more carbon emmissions than us all flying on a single airline flight. That's 149 cars driving for, say 12 hours, compared to one flight of 2 hours. As for trains, I love them. But, they don't run for free! Whether it is diesel fuel or electricity, a train still leaves a carbon footprint and my 149 co-passengers will need more than 1 train to get to our destination, say 5 trains travelling for 9 hours a piece. There are no free rides in this world. People need to travel and live their lives and there is nothing we can do about it.
The sad fact seems to be that whilst there is still a drop of oil in this planet and whilst there are still greedy governments and businesses out there, this planet will have to suffer the human touch for a few more years yet.

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

What is the milage of a passenger jet?
Posted by: Leadbyexample on Feb 14, 2007 3:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to the Boeing Company, a 757-200 burns 2.56 gallons per statute mile. 200 people flying from Minneapolis to Las Vegas, a 1,300 mile flight, would be 260,000 passenger miles. The fuel burn would be 3,328 gallons or 78 passenger miles per gallon. This is about the same as 4 people traveling in a car that gets 20 mpg. By the way, the 757 is quite fuel efficient. I have read that jets, because of the flying altitude, damage the atmosphere, especially night flights.

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

We need to get out shit 2gether
Posted by: Krain61 on Feb 14, 2007 4:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have so many techs out there to fix alot of our problems like the high speed trains of japan that run on magnets{which I seen someone above mentioned} We have fuel cell and hydogen to run cars and the hybirds would be a good start.
And if big oil or someone with a brain{no me} could re-invent the the thing a ma bob that would give you double or more on your milage on your car. It was like a vaporizer. your car would run on vapors. I only say this again because maybe someone out there has some money to see if they can re-invent it. And if we ran the high speed magnetic train from south America since were going to open our Freaken borders anyhow we could get them here pretty dam fast. Short trip could use a hover craft that runs on a fuel cell and solar to subsidize it. Think of it this way your backed in a corner with just your wits and duck tape! What would Mcgiever do? Did I spell that right? Who really cares? My point is we have to solutions but now we need the balls to give up some things.
I like driving but I think it's time to move in the better direction to insure our kids a world. I'm sure they could find a new engine that would run on something other than K1 but like the saying goes{big oil} We don't use trains like other countries do which would transport many more people cheaper.I know were in to big of a hurry!

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

SOLAR DIMMING- fewer flights result in hotter days and cooler nights
Posted by: plantland on Feb 15, 2007 5:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There was a frightening program on "Solar dimming" on PBS - Nova? It seems that we have to take the phenomenon "solar dimming " into the equation.

When flights were halted for security reasons on 9/11 and immediately after, scientists who later reviewed temperatures in various places where there were daily records found that there were hotter days and cooler nights when air traffic stopped.

It seems that carbons from air traffic were both masking and ameliorating this situation, and that reducing them will nonetheless result in hotter days and cooler nights.

I found this show so frightening that I am not sure that I took the facts in well. I hope that it is available in the archives.
I don't remember whether solar dimming was a result of man's activity on earth, or was just a natural phenomenon.

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

On the plus side....
Posted by: Kevin Carson on Feb 15, 2007 5:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...if there is no more subsidized long-distance air freight and other long-distance shipping, with all the structural incentives to economic centralization they create, there won't *be* nearly as many super-wealthy to fly around in those jets. Good riddance!

If you'll pardon the Stallman plagiarism, that travel industry flack seems to see the "the free movement of people and goods" more in terms of "free beer" than of "free speech." If there's a fundamental right to do stuff on someone else's nickel, it's a new one on me. On the other hand, if all the costs are internalized in price, the market mechanism will be pretty effective in making sure there aren't so many people jetting around.

As for those Third World countries that will supposedly be hit so hard by an end to corporate colonization, maybe the sweatshop workers could go to something really radical, like small-scale production for local markets. One reason they're so desperate for employment by Western corporations is that the state's patent monopolies lock the corporations into permanent control of modern production technology, and relegate Third World countries to supplying sweatshop labor. Another reason is that so much of the land on which peasants formerly supported themselves has been enclosed by landed oligarchies in collusion with Western capital.

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

Alternatives
Posted by: Mark Spangler on Feb 17, 2007 9:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The condition of our railways is pathetic and it is by design. The continued strangulation of Amtrak by the federal government is terrible and the system has been rendered impotent by a continual reduction in the number of routes and destinations available to consumers. Several years ago I traveled, along with my wife and son, from St. Paul to Chicago - ROUNDTRIP - for less that $300. Not only was the trip enjoyable, but the food in the dining car was wonderful and, despite the ragged condition of the tracks, we had a great time. Travel time? Eight hours, and we ended up at Union Station in the shadow of the Sears Tower, not far from our Grant Park Hotel. If we were to have flown we'd have wasted two hours just arriving at the airport early, had a 90 minute flight, hassled with traveling from Midway or O'Hare into Chicago proper and dropped $30 cab fare to boot. Same mess going back. It would have been idiocy to fly... yet millions of people do this very same thing on a daily basis. We need to put a rapid end to short-run airline flight. It would go a long way toward reducing pollution as well. Now, let's fast forward to last summer. Try as I might, I could not make a connection work for me as I wanted to travel from Minneapolis to Kansas City. I'd have had to travel on the Empire Builder to Chicago and then go south, which would have been absurd. We made sure to visit Union Station in Kansas City to put a little bit of "railroad" into our vacation. It's a great place with wonderful restaurants and museums, but precious few actual rail customers.
The continual budget cuts to Amtrak has forced the railway to reduce the number of their routes and as a result, we DROVE to KC from Minnesota, wasting precious fuel and creating our own pollution- while clogging the highways. Does this make sense? Sadly, at the station and on the trains themselves, one is continually exposed to literature from Amtrak pleading with riders to lobby the federal government to support the rail system and end the starvation tactics.
Simply stated, we must increase our commitment to trains, as has most every other first-world nation. We need more track, safer trains, better rails and a commitment to high-speed rail traffic. I ride the rails every chance I get. We ALL SHOULD, and the love affair with getting there through our ever-darkening skies has got to end.

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

Air fare only for the rich?
Posted by: Doubtom on Feb 19, 2007 12:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thats 'a blessing in disguise! What better way to point out the need for a good class struggle between the bloated 'haves' and the rapidly growing 'have-nots'?

Of course when we can be sure that only the bloated rich elite are in the air we can have a sale on ground-to-air missiles. See? it all balances out in the end.

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

sea travel anyone?
Posted by: wleming on Feb 19, 2007 2:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the airline industry killed trans atlantic ship passenger travel for all those except the very rich. but sea travel could, if managed, cost less for a mass public than air travel.... why is no one on either side of the atlantic.. u.k.-- usa..... looking at this alternative? ask the airliine lobby, and the govt. people they pay.

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

And that's just the way "they" want it!
Posted by: FAITHCARR on Feb 19, 2007 2:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And that's just the way "they" want it! Air travel is already out of reach for most of us activists. As is car fuel. Gotta keep us at home...

We are organizing and going ANYWAY, just doubling up and sharing the cost.

I'm Just Sayin'

Faith Carr
M17 Car/Bus Caravan to DC
Gainesville FL

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

Our usual response: Too little, too late?
Posted by: monkeywrench on Feb 19, 2007 2:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Modernized air-traffic control systems could reduce the number of planes circling airports waiting to land or take off, says John Meenan, executive vice president of the Air Transport Association of America, which represents the nation's airlines."

Yeah. And airlines can start by getting rid of their stupid hub-and-spoke systems, which double the number of takeoffs, landings, taxiing, and idling on the tarmac until a gate opens up. How much CO2 does an airliner spew into the air while going nowhere, sometimes for hours, with its engines idling?

Also; does it make sense to lift 300,000+ pounds 25,000 to 30,000 feet into the air for just a few minutes at altitude on 200- to 400-mile trips? NO!! Imagine how much energy is required for that effort. We need to invest in high-speed railroads – like Europe and Japan did 30 YEARS AGO! – to replace incredibly wasteful short-hop airline flights. High-speed trains were promised for the Boston-New York-Washington corridor years ago; where the hell are they? This failure shows just how much we ARE NOT taking this problem seriously. What's it going to take to wake up people to our wasteful ways? Battery park and other parts of New York City permanently under water? Malibu colony becoming one big tide pool? Palm Beach, Florida turning into a new scuba diving destination (by airline, of course!)? Or, maybe, tropical diseases like Dengue fever reaching Minnesota, or malaria sweeping Canada?

If we do not learn how to surf the waves of inevitable changes barreling toward us, then we will most certainly be drowned by them.

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

The Elites have been wanting the middle class out of the air for awhile now...
Posted by: summerhill on Feb 19, 2007 2:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... nice mendacious justification piece... like we can't find any alternative to poisonous fuel ... uh-huh ...

More crap from AlterNUT ... where the MYTH is the Message!

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

Jetliners get over 100 mpg per person. If you have to travel, fly.
Posted by: 747Engineer on Mar 7, 2007 12:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm sick of seeing the ignorant bash jet travel without really understanding the benefits and costs.

Think about it: A 1000 mile long road or railway with bridges and tunnels is an enormous environmental impact. When you drive your car a long distance, you are not only burning 30 mpg, you are also responsible for your share of the staggering cost of building and maintaining the infrastructure you're driving on. What is the carbon footprint of 1000 miles of 4 lanes of asphalt? Don't forget the impact of repaving it every 5 years!

When you fly, you go from one big fat runway to another without touching any of the environment in between. The ends are as expensive to build as any motorway, but they're only a few miles long. The middle is just air.

During a flight, a fully loaded jetliner can greatly exceed 100 mpg. See the last page of the last week's issue of AvWeek for a calculation. The advantage is so great that I suspect you'd even come out ahead flying if you were only going 100 miles.

Bottom line: Flying is almost always more "green" than driving, for any long trip, and planes get more efficient all the time.

Of course, if the trade is staying at home versus flying, well, nothing burns less carbon than doing nothing.

Another negative: You can run a car on ethanol or hydrogen, but it just doesn't have the energy density of kerosene. You can run a car on electricity from wind turbines, but batteries just weigh too much for airplanes. If we want to preserve our access to air travel, we need to reduce the carbon footprint of everything else to keep planes in the air.

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

Business travel is a far greater culprit than vacationers!
Posted by: ataraxia on Mar 12, 2007 1:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Vacationers fly maybe once or twice a year. Business travelers fly much, much more often.

I have to wonder why didn't this article point out that business travelers far out-number vacationers, and also that many such trips could be replaced using video conferencing.

Conferencing software has reached a level of development that I believe makes much business travel more of a habit than a necessity. I suspect that one of the reasons it hasn't been curtailed is that such trips are tax deductible as business expenses, and of course will continue to be even if fares increase substantially.

Additionally, many, possibly even a majority of business travelers today are very tired of being away from their families and schlepping from city to city, and country to country. Not to mention the extra time and bother that flying entails now due to security measures.

Yes, there are many cases where there is no substitute for being there. Fine. But I think that people visiting family and friends, or taking their families to important historical sites or Disneyland are the folks who are going to have to bite the bullet on this one.

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