Airliners account for 2.5% of global CO2 emissions [1], yet we are working to ban passenger air travel to protect the climate. 5-9% is huge in comparison, and we should legislate restrictions on wasteful computing before the climate emergency gets any worse.
The entire aviation industry accounts for about 2.5% of carbon emissions. If we banned air travel entirely it would do approximately nothing to reduce climate change.
The single best thing people can do for the environment is refrain from reproducing, but that's not quite such an emotionally appealing thing to protest about.
Clearly, airline flights should be reduced to 1% of what they are now.
A global quota of number of planes in air per hour maybe should be even imposed by the UN and other organizations that care for our environment (I'm looking at you Green Peace)
Fighting climate changed should deeply restructure our world and our societies.
Carbon footprint measured for each person (even how much CO2 they breath out!)
and net zero achieved!
I get what you're saying about limiting air travel, but let's look at the bigger picture.
Commercial flights make up around 2% of global carbon emissions, so forcing people like me not to travel is not going to make a significant dent in climate change. Focusing on industries and companies that are responsible for the bulk of emissions might be a better way to go.
Rather than trying to control individuals, we need to hold industries and corporations accountable. Pushing for policies that target high-emitting sectors like energy, transportation, and agriculture can create real change. By tackling the main culprits, we have a better shot at making a difference.
Air transportation is a major contributor to CO2, if you limit the scope to the people who use it. It is estimated that about 80% of the world's adults have never taken a flight, and 94% of the world's adults have not taken a flight in over a year.
So, the real picture is that this 2.5% of global CO2 emissions are caused by as few as 6% of the population, who also are incidentally the richest and bear a high personal carbon footprint in other domains than transportation.
Also please remember that the aviation sector is growing, and therefore its global contribution to GHG emissions will grow as well in the future. Discounting the carbon footprint of the aviation sector based on today's numbers is a mistake.
If you do not want to impede on your ability to travel, you shouldn't object to it for the 94% of the population that want the same thing as you, and when it becomes available to them the aviation sector's emissions will increase 15-fold.
A high carbon emission tax can force people to reduce their useless flights. Aviation industry's global emission is at 2 percent and only tiny percentage (3-5%?) of world population travel by air. A lot of problems is also due to inefficient traffic control and laws. Plus, that include air cargo. I can't find anything that accounts only for consumer flights.
Limiting flights would be silly. That's an input, not an output. If we want to limit CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) then we need a global emissions tax or cap and trade system.
Air travel accounted for 2.5% of CO2 emissions in 2020 and closer to around 3.5% of total contribution to global warming.[1]
Only 11% of the world's population travelled by air in 2018, with at most 4% taking international flights, and 1% of the world's population accounting for more than half of the total emissions.[2]
Passenger air travel is projected to grow by about 44% by 2050,[3] and will probably take up an even more substantial slice of overall emissions by then because technologies to decarbonize air travel (other than direct carbon capture) do not yet exist.
The argument you are making is probably least compelling when applied to air travel compared to any other form of consumerism, and HN's readership (generally speaking) is uniquely culpable here.
People definitely shouldn't fly if they don't need to, but I think you're overestimating the warming effect from aviation. Estimates put it in the ~3% range overall [1]. Most of that (80%) was passenger travel [2] (pre-pandemic) and 20% cargo.
The EU's push for short-haul flight bans [3] makes a lot of sense though, especially when high-speed (and sometimes electrified) rail is an option.
Computers can be run by cleaner sources of energy, not planes (at least not with what current technology permits; batteries don't have enough energy density). I prefer plane travel myself, but let's be honest, emissions-wise planes are a horrible way to travel [1].
The data does not support the common opinion that airplanes are terrible for the environment. Their total contribution to for example CO2 is tiny compared to industry and electricity generation.
Somehow the climate activists have decided to make a lot of noise about flying but it's mostly unfounded. They go as far as using very old models of planes in their calculations (e.g. a 737-400 model) and claiming that's the amount of CO2 per passenger of all air travel. While that model is out of use by the airline for at least 15 years already. It was designed in 1985.
So beware of the data and tricks like this when you're told flying is so bad for the environment.
Air travel contributes to about 2.5% of greenhouse gas emissions and is responsible for about 3.5% of anthropogenic warming [1]. In my opinion, there is an outsized amount of public outrage going on and we should be directing this outrage toward larger sources of anthropogenic warming. There is only so much people can take before they get fatigued. "Spending" this outrage on something that is only 3.5% of the problem seems wasteful.
All of global aviation, passengers and freight, constitute around 2% of humanity's CO2 emissions. I know it's a great pincushion--who can avoid hating airlines?--but it's a staggeringly tiny contributor to climate change.
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-aviation
reply