What are your views on the Aviation Industry

[ROOBIO]

Commercial air travel is currently responsible for a relatively tiny part of the global carbon footprint —just 3.5% of total greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But the unique chemistry of high-altitude jet emissions may produce an additional warming effect, while the explosive growth in air travel makes it one of the fastest-growing sources of carbon gases in the atmosphere. And unlike energy or automobiles, where carbon-free or lower-carbon alternatives already exist, even if they have yet to be widely adopted, there is no low-carbon way to fly, and they're likely won't be for decades.

The Airports Council International estimates that the number of airline tickets sold per year will double to more than 9 billion by 2025. Much of the growth will come in rapidly developing Asia, where passenger numbers are increasing by 10% to 15% annually. 

Even as carbon emissions from air travel grow rapidly, scientists are investigating claims that they may double the warming effect because of the altitude at which they're emitted. As jets soar they leave behind contrails, vapor threads of condensation that can persist for hours, especially in colder areas, and behave like high-altitude cirrus clouds. Those clouds seem to have a net warming effect, trapping heat in the atmosphere. Planes also create ozone, a greenhouse gas that has a stronger warming effect at high altitudes than low. The science is still being nailed down, but the side effects of high-altitude emissions could double air travel's contributions to global warming.

Are we using our magical ability to fly irresponsibly?

Edited November 17, 2019 by ROOBIO

[Shaun]

Yes, very irresponsibly. Until the the planes are electric, I won't be flying anywhere. 

[ROOBIO]

14 minutes ago, Shaun said:

Yes, very irresponsibly. Until the the planes are electric, I won't be flying anywhere. 

I am starting to agree. I was planning on visiting my brother, who lives in India, for 2 weeks. Then I realised the absurdity of flying around the world to visit someone for ONLY 2 weeks. What a luxury we have, and it is absolutely taken for granted. Flights have become too cheap and are accessible to many people. A dangerous mix. 

 

[Tanz]

@Shiva I'd have to agree with Shivas perspective. I enjoy traveling, learning about culture and people. My consensus of traveling has lead me to believe that most people want to be good people and they all want the same things everyone else wants regardless of where they are from.

If we had exchange programs all over the world in grade schools, think about all the good it can do to help build a peaceful society. 

If we are thinking about carbon foot print you'd never buy a phone or a computer. Amazon web servers and Google servers must be eating so much power everyday so we can communicate in this forum. Doesn't mean we should not find better solutions but we can also celebrate what we presently have too. 

[Matt8800]

6 hours ago, ROOBIO said:

Commercial air travel is currently responsible for a relatively tiny part of the global carbon footprint —just 3.5% of total greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But the unique chemistry of high-altitude jet emissions may produce an additional warming effect, while the explosive growth in air travel makes it one of the fastest-growing sources of carbon gases in the atmosphere. And unlike energy or automobiles, where carbon-free or lower-carbon alternatives already exist, even if they have yet to be widely adopted, there is no low-carbon way to fly, and they're likely won't be for decades.

The Airports Council International estimates that the number of airline tickets sold per year will double to more than 9 billion by 2025. Much of the growth will come in rapidly developing Asia, where passenger numbers are increasing by 10% to 15% annually. 

Even as carbon emissions from air travel grow rapidly, scientists are investigating claims that they may double the warming effect because of the altitude at which they're emitted. As jets soar they leave behind contrails, vapor threads of condensation that can persist for hours, especially in colder areas, and behave like high-altitude cirrus clouds. Those clouds seem to have a net warming effect, trapping heat in the atmosphere. Planes also create ozone, a greenhouse gas that has a stronger warming effect at high altitudes than low. The science is still being nailed down, but the side effects of high-altitude emissions could double air travel's contributions to global warming.

Are we using our magical ability to fly irresponsibly?

@ROOBIO Dont worry, these problems will all solve themselves when mother earth cooks a few billion humans. It was always inevitable. 

[ROOBIO]

1 hour ago, Shiva said:

Aviation is awesome! Travel connects people and contributes to making us more open-minded and hence elevates our consciousness.

Yes, the footprint is a problem, but we must put it in perspective:

The footprint of dairy, for example, is very similar to that of airplanes, plus it causes a lot of pollution and animal cruelty. 

Personally, I find it much easier to give up dairy than flying because I live on an island. The only way for me to occasionally leave this island to visit friends and family is by airplane or by boat. But boat takes 10x longer, is 10x more expensive and also bad for the environment.

So, I personally get a lot of value from flying and am willing to "pay" the environmental price.

I think that airplanes have enriched our lives tremendously. On the other hand, dairy and many other things we recklessly consume are completely unnecessary and don't add a lot of value IMO.

So, I say don't quit something that has very high value to you. Instead, look at your life and evaluate, what are the things you regularly do and consume? What is the environmental/social/economic/political impact of those? What value do these things have for you personally?

And then you may reduce those activities that have high negative impact and low value (and I'm sure we all could find some). For me this is dairy, for example, for you it can be flying, for another person it may be something else.

I think in general, we need to be very nuanced before we discard or discredit a wonderful invention like flying.

Yeah, this is the perspective I am generally using. I didn't emphasis it in my post because I was only highlighting the effects the industry could have on the environment. I saw it in myself. I was willing to put 1.6 tonnes of Co2e in the atmosphere just to see my brother for 2 weeks when he is moving back anyway a couple of months after. We have to evaluate whether flights we take are needed and worth that cost. It is difficult though because it is a subjective opinion. 

However, most people I interact with on a daily basis do not take this perspective. They just assume because they have the money to be able to afford a plane that they can use it, which is fine, but they abuse it. People can get flights from London to Russia for £10. I know people that fly every other weekend. As well as eating meat and dairy on a daily basis.  

Not everybody lives on an island, away from their family and friends. Most live in cities in close proximity to their relatives. Generally speaking. 

At what cost do we need our lives to be enriched?

An interesting piece of data pulled from Seth Wynes 2017 environmental research paper.

Edited November 17, 2019 by ROOBIO

[ROOBIO]

41 minutes ago, Matt8800 said:

@ROOBIO Dont worry, these problems will all solve themselves when mother earth cooks a few billion humans. It was always inevitable. 

Yeah, to be honest, it doesn't matter. I don't worry about the outcome, I just try to do the best I can. Everything is progressing as need be. 

 

[Shaun]

1 hour ago, Shiva said:

Aviation is awesome! Travel connects people and contributes to making us more open-minded and hence elevates our consciousness.

Yes, the footprint is a problem, but we must put it in perspective:

The footprint of dairy, for example, is very similar to that of airplanes, plus it causes a lot of pollution and animal cruelty. 

Personally, I find it much easier to give up dairy than flying because I live on an island. The only way for me to occasionally leave this island to visit friends and family is by airplane or by boat. But boat takes 10x longer, is 10x more expensive and also bad for the environment.

So, I personally get a lot of value from flying and am willing to "pay" the environmental price.

I think that airplanes have enriched our lives tremendously. On the other hand, dairy and many other things we recklessly consume are completely unnecessary and don't add a lot of value IMO.

So, I say don't quit something that has very high value to you. Instead, look at your life and evaluate, what are the things you regularly do and consume? What is the environmental/social/economic/political impact of those? What value do these things have for you personally?

And then you may reduce those activities that have high negative impact and low value (and I'm sure we all could find some). For me this is dairy, for example, for you it can be flying, for another person it may be something else.

I think in general, we need to be very nuanced before we discard or discredit a wonderful invention like flying.

You're right there. Humanity needs to get rid of meat and dairy completely. It's almost as bad as the holocaust yet not enough people are complaining. 

[CreamCat]

7 hours ago, Shiva said:

On the other hand, dairy and many other things we recklessly consume are completely unnecessary and don't add a lot of value IMO.

I drink milk and yogurt. What alternatives do you know? Can there be ways to produce milk without torturing cows? Theoretically, milk doesn't require butchering or torturing cows.

Edited November 18, 2019 by CreamCat

[SerpaeTetra]

7 hours ago, CreamCat said:

I drink milk and yogurt. What alternatives do you know? Can there be ways to produce milk without torturing cows? Theoretically, milk doesn't require butchering or torturing cows.

https://mercyforanimals.org/heres-what-farms-do-to-cows-who-no-longer

https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/factory-farming/cows/dairy-industry/

Almond milk with calcium.  There are some vegan yogurts, but can be a little chalky.  Honestly, both probably aren't as tasty as their dairy counterparts.   

[CreamCat]

2 hours ago, SerpaeTetra said:

Almond milk with calcium.  There are some vegan yogurts, but can be a little chalky.  Honestly, both probably aren't as tasty as their dairy counterparts.

I heard Thomas Frank say almond milk tastes good. Soy milk also tastes good.

Edited November 18, 2019 by CreamCat

[Nak Khid]

2015, Guardian UK

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/shortcuts/2015/oct/21/almond-milk-quite-good-for-you-very-bad-for-the-planet

Emine Saner

Almond milk: quite good for you – very bad for the planet

Sales of the non-dairy milk alternative are on the rise. But the super-healthy nuts – mostly grown in drought-hit California – need millions of litres of water to be produced. Think twice before you pour it on your cereal

Snoop around the contents of an “eat clean” aficionado’s grocery basket and chances are, among the organic cauliflower and mountain of avocados, you will come across a carton of almond milk. A few years ago, those avoiding cow’s milk because of lactose intolerance or for ethical reasons were drinking soya, but health scares have seen a rising demand for alternative plant “milks”, including rice, hemp and – most popular – almond. This week, Waitrose said almond milk had overtaken soya as its customers’ preferred dairy alternative.

Almonds are one of the healthiest foods you can eat. The nuts (or seeds, if you are a botanical pedant) are packed full of vitamins, minerals and beneficial plant chemicals, as well as protein, healthy fats and fibre, and eating almonds is associated with a lowered risk of heart disease and Alzheimer’s, among other conditions.

Alarm as almond farms consume California's water

It makes sense, then, to assume almond milk is packed with healthy properties. On cartons of Alpro (“enjoy plant power”), one of the market leaders that uses almonds grown in the Mediterranean, there is a picture of an almond breaking open as if this elixir of good health is exploding out of it. But, like many other brands, Alpro’s almond content is just 2% – the biggest ingredient is water, followed by sugar. Like most others, it also contains additives such as stabilisers and emulsifiers. The amount of sugar is less than the natural sugars found in cow’s milk, so it has fewer calories, but there is also less protein – 0.5g to the 3.5g you’ll get in the same amount of cow’s milk. Protein, says Helen Bond, spokesperson for the British Dietetic Association, “gives a feeling of fullness, it helps you to feel fuller for longer, and a lot of people are trying to get their protein intake up”. Dairy, she adds, “is a really great source of a readily available form of calcium, so you need to look for plant-based milk that is fortified with calcium, essential for maintaining bones as we get older”.

Like quinoa, another staple of hip “health” obsessives before it, production of almond milk also appears to have a hefty environmental impact. More than 80% of the world’s almond crop is grown in California, which has been experiencing its worst drought on record. It takes 1.1 gallons (5 litres) of water to grow one almond, and thanks to the big profits they bring in, almond orchards continue to be planted (this isn’t to say cow’s milk, which takes about 100 litres of water to produce 100ml of milk, is more environmentally friendly – more that its production is not concentrated in one area of the globe).

Last year, an apocalyptic piece for Mother Jones by Tom Philpott, who has long detailed the environmental ravages of this crop in California, summed up the problems: almond farmers drilling thousands of feet down into aquifiers to pump out water has resulted, in some areas, in subsidence of around 11 inches a year, which “threatens vital infrastructure like bridges, roads, and irrigation canals” and could trigger earthquakes.

https://www.motherjones.com/food/2014/07/your-almond-habit-sucking-califoirnia-dry/

Furthermore, insatiable demand for almonds is harming honeybees, already an embattled species. Almond trees need to be pollinated but bringing in 1.6m hives to California every year, “into an area dripping with insecticides is a recipe for disaster” writes Philpott (up to 25% of the hives were damaged in 2014), including whole colonies killed off; this spring they fared better after guidelines were issued about pesticide-use during the trees’ blooming season). It’s enough – or should be – to make anyone spit out their almond milk latte in alarm.

[Nak Khid]

22 hours ago, Shiva said:

 

I am saying that for me it's easy to give up dairy and it didn't add a lot of value to my life. So, looking at the consequences of dairy production, quitting it is a no-brainer for me.

 

Beef production is significantly worse than that of dairy. Do you eat meat?