When was the last flight you took?

[Pmt111500]

Out of general interest thought the forum might use some polls on behavioral habits of the forum residents. This came up elsewhere and might be of interest here too.

[b_lumenkraft]

I flew once in my life and therefore my CO2 budget flight wise is exhausted.

[Sleepy]

Last commercial in 2007, the last time I flew was a year later,.
Jumped out of a Cessna and waved goodbye.

[Avalonian]

At the moment, my research involves an annual trip to China, where I currently am, and I don't have the money to go by rail. That ain't great, but I'm also vegetarian (mostly vegan), don't drive, and we keep our winter thermostat as long as we can stand. I'm also heavily involved in local sustainability, food security and so on, plus do a lot of outreach on natural history and indeed (occasionally) climate change.
     How does that balance out? I don't really know... but as was mentioned in another thread, it's hard to be perfect in the current world system. If we want somewhere secure to live, we need to be able to buy our house (in process), and for that we need the income that comes from doing the work I'm trained to do. At some point, that will come to an end... but for now I can't afford to be the martyr (as somebody else put it).
    Does it keep me awake at night? Yes, sometimes. Can I do anything about it? Not right now; at least, not without giving up my vocation and our chance at future security. 

[Neven]

If you do whatever you can in other areas, and you absolutely have to fly for work/science, I don't think you should be too hard on yourself. But of course, it's a process and so this is just another area where improvements must be made, especially if the work/science is more destructive than contributing to society.

[Avalonian]

If you do whatever you can in other areas, and you absolutely have to fly for work/science, I don't think you should be too hard on yourself. But of course, it's a process and so this is just another area where improvements must be made, especially if the work/science is more destructive than contributing to society.

Thanks for that, Neven - it's kind-of the position I've come to as well. I've got an eye to looking at when the balance becomes untenable, and it may be soon... but for the moment, I've got to balance practicality against ideals. The science is trying to understand early animal evolution, including how it coped with major crises, so I believe it's more contributory than destructive... even though some aspects of it have relevance to understanding the origins of major shale gas deposits. That's not the angle I follow, for obvious reasons, but some of my colleagues are funded for more utilitarian purposes. 

[Tor Bejnar]

About 5 years ago I flew to New Mexico as my mom had just moved out of the 'ancestral' home and I drove home in a U-Hall (with a sister who also lives in the East) carting old (fine) family furniture.  Before that, I flew (with family) to Colorado in 2005 to help spread my father's ashes in the area he camped almost every summer from 1947 to 2003 (obviously, I camped there a lot too).  (I did the 'carbon offset credit' thing to ease my guilt both times.)   The 'sparsity' of my recent flying 'makes up' for my having flown around the world 4 times in the '70s and '80s, taken 5 other trans-oceanic round trips (60's - 80's), and about 2 dozen domestic commercial flights (70's - 90's).  I grew up flying as my parents had a single propeller airplane they used (sometimes extensively) for work.  I 'stopped' flying because of what I learned about climate change.  Since 2000, we drive to New Mexico to see my mother [and father once] and brothers (and sometimes a visiting sister who lives further west) about once a year, with the benefit of seeing a cousin in Texas, and we can bring home rock specimens (read: "boulders to line our driveway").

[etienne]

The last time I flight for private reasons was in 2006. For holidays it was in 2003 to Greenland. A great holiday.

[wili]

The last holiday flight I took was the summer of '03 to Paris. There I witnessed first hand the first major event that could very reliably be directly attributed to GW--the deadly heatwave that killed tens of thousands in France and Europe in just a few days. I had been thinking of giving up flying before then, but that really helped me decide. I had committed myself to one other event that required flight the next year, but I haven't flown since, and have pretty much given up any long distance (beyond ~10 miles) travel powered by fossil-death-fuels. I don't really miss it, and feel much more locally focused now.

[Bruce Steele]

Wili, I think most people could get their carbon footprint down to reasonable levels if they too followed your no flying and keeping other travel to less than 10 miles. There are of course millions of people living within those constraints. What that lifestyle looks like deserves more attention than ICE verses EV . What does a less than two ton CO2 footprint look like?

I only remember taking one flight in the last ten years but I still travel far too many miles transporting livestock.
 There is a carbon cost to food but unless you grow your own there are food travel miles involved. The ideal is grow your own food and resist all travel beyond ~10 miles .  Some people would consider that a huge imposition on their personal freedom but for most people freedom is a vice and freely abused.

[wili]

"What that lifestyle looks like deserves more attention than ICE verses EV "

I agree (as usual, with you). That whole discussion bores me to tears, when it doesn't infuriate me. And I bought an EV more than ten years ago.

I too find I am driving more than I wish, since my urban farm is a couple miles from my home, and various heavy materials need to be transported...and, I'm getting old, fat and lazy :/

[Sleepy]

What that lifestyle looks like deserves more attention than ICE verses EV . What does a less than two ton CO2 footprint look like?

Something like this or less (translation at the link).
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1150.msg143576.html#msg143576


Swedens overshoot day was Apr 4 last year. There's no room left to buy an EV.
https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/energy-policy-now/hard-look-negative-emissions

[Neven]

I too find I am driving more than I wish, since my urban farm is a couple miles from my home, and various heavy materials need to be transported...and, I'm getting old, fat and lazy :/

Same here. Bought an EV, driving more now (I knew we would be driving more, hence the EV).

Another area where we're failing, is the middle-sized dog, eating more meat than the whole family combined.

Clothes will always be a problem, even though we buy almost everything second-hand.

Last time I've flown, was in 2002, to India. Didn't know about AGW then.

[NevB]

The last six years I've flown about 2000km each way once or twice a week for work.

The work is in the Pilbara, there is nothing there (2hr drive to the nearest small town) and it's inhospitable (most summer day temps around 40+ c) not many want to live there. Until mining companies are forced to change this, flying will be the only option for most.
One small piece of better news is that the company has a goal of achieving at least 22% indigenous workers in the next FY where last year they were around 18%. The reason for this is I believe is purely economic, cheaper workers with less travel. The result though is less flying.

BTW Just this one large size mine has 9 flights a week with 774-300's? or around 100 to 130 people each flight. Plus a few shorter flights.

Now I'm working in the city and commuting on the electric train, currently that's were the work is, when this job is over I'll probably again have the choice to fly or not work.

As for personal travel I've had just a single trip to the US in this time and two trips to Bali, each about six hours. These trips were not entirely my choice and I'm not planning any more. Bali (in Indonesia) is worth mentioning where I couldn't name anyone that I know here in Perth that hasn't been there and many make a few trips a year.
The cost of a Bali trip for three days with accommodation can be as little as $300, which is cheaper than a local holiday. Until the true environmental cost is included this won't change and any political party that where to even mentioned this wouldn't stand a chance of being elected.
 
Here in Australia everyone is travelling with constant trips to all places around the world. There is very little recognition of the impacts and little interest in knowing.

One thing I found particularly depressing was after the recent fires in Tasmania that burn't bushland that hadn't been burnt in a thousand years due to the heat and drought. There were a few articles in the media, the depressing part were the comments from people who were so concerned about expressing their grief over this that they were organising flights for people to go see the unburnt forests before they are gone. Not one sign from anyone of just how totally ignorant this was. 

[Aluminium]

2.5 months ago I had one flight for the last 8 years.

[Bruce Steele]

NevB, Thanks for the honesty. Flying because your job demands it is probably the largest driver of CO2 emissions for many members of this forum.
 When I was fishing for a living my boat used about 80 gallons a day or one ton of CO2 emissions.When I finally realized my jobs CO2 contribution was part of what was causing acidification it ruined all the fun of fishing. I changed to farming and cut back my emissions by 90% but still it is my job related CO2 that dominates my carbon budget. Although we can find ways to reduce CO2 in our personal lifestyle choices changing jobs is a very tough decision. Very very few people will change jobs if it means a reduced income . If your job is helping to kill the planet it becomes however a major dose of cognitive dissonance for the cognoscenti . 
 The whole challenge of achieving net zero in our personal lives involves lots of turmoil , achieving zero at work is more difficult and changing other people's fuel use is probably the most difficult of all.

[wili]

Neven wrote: "Clothes will always be a problem, even though we buy almost everything second-hand."

We do too. Unfortunately, our main source for used clothes locally just closed shop :/

I was surprised to see that my biggest carbon footprint wrt clothing was my shoes. Basically none are made locally or even in the US, so there's the transport issue. And they're heavier than most other individual pieces of clothing. I also have weirdly wide feet (sextuple E!) so can't easily get them used, even if I were so inclined.

But I try to mostly focus on the big contributors (flying, diet) and worry proportionately less about the minor ones (clothing, straws, etc).

I think flying for job should partly be counted toward the people who own the business and use its service. But yeah, if your job requires a lot of travel (and so many do), one might want to look for a different job eventually. I probably lost my last job partly because I wouldn't fly to conferences to hear talks I was not interested in and give talks no one else was interested in.

[TerryM]

Woops


I answered the poll before reading the thread. I'd answered >10 as I recalled my return flight from Toronto to Havana in 2005. What I forgot was 2 one hour sightseeing flights about Kenora in a vintage "Beaver" float plane (1948), one was in 2004, but the second one was in 2011.


All of the flights were for frivolous reasons.
Terry

[be cause]

Next year I hope to fly to the Amazonas to celebrate my 60th in the Floresta Nacional de Purus a nature sanctury of some 2 million hectares . I do hope the president and his cronies don't get there first .
  I have helped the preservation of parts of the Amazon be possible until now but this will be my first trip . This may be where I choose to spend my later life .. I will know after I've been . I feel no guilt in my occasional travel by plane . My footprint is mostly very small . b.c.

[El Cid]

With all the airline-bashing, do you realize that per seat per 100 km, the newer planes consume 2-3 liters per 100 km, so if you travel with a car with 4 people (a standard family size) that gives you the same consumption as travelling with an airplane?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft

[SteveMDFP]

Last flight a bit over a year ago, for work. 
Before that, about 6 years, I think.  Family funeral.
Commuting is my only routine travel, and it's public transit.
I'm fairly frugal, but I'm not a world-class example of minimizing carbon footprint.

If everyone in the West lived like me, there'd be a severe economic contraction.  But this would still be a fairly extravagant lifestyle for much of the developing world.

[zufall]

With all the airline-bashing

The problem is that fuel consumption is but one aspect of aviation's climate impact:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviation#Total_climate_effects

Recent study "Contrail cirrus radiative forcing for future air traffic":

https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/19/8163/2019/

I don't know of any research indicating that the climate impact of air travel may be reduced to the level of travelling by car / train. If that's on the horizon I'll be most happy.

[Neven]

With all the airline-bashing, do you realize that per seat per 100 km, the newer planes consume 2-3 liters per 100 km, so if you travel with a car with 4 people (a standard family size) that gives you the same consumption as travelling with an airplane?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft

I was always told that flying produces around 500 gr of CO2 per kilometer per passenger. If the above is true, I would say this isn't correct, given that a very fuel-inefficient car produces 200-250 gr per kilometer. If you divide that by four passenger, you get 50 gr per kilometer per passenger, which is 10 times less than flying is said to produce.

[El Cid]

With all the airline-bashing

The problem is that fuel consumption is but one aspect of aviation's climate impact:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviation#Total_climate_effects

Recent study "Contrail cirrus radiative forcing for future air traffic":

https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/19/8163/2019/

I don't know of any research indicating that the climate impact of air travel may be reduced to the level of travelling by car / train. If that's on the horizon I'll be most happy.

you are absoultely right about this, and taxing air flight for its pollutive effects is the right thing

however, most people think that airplanes emit multiples of what cars do and that is simply not true

cars (especially as many if not most are transporting just one person!) are a much bigger problem than planes

[wili]

The other thing that comparisons between air and car (and other terrestrial) travel miss is that most people take plane trips that they would simply never take by car (or by any other combination of terrestrial and maritime transport). The average plane trip is much farther than the average car trip.

So most of the time it's an unrealistic/false comparison, since the choice usually isn't between taking a trip by plane or car--it's between taking the trip by plane, or not going at all.

[El Cid]

car vs plane:

An average car runs 15000-20000 km / yr, using 1200-2000 liters of gasoline. Many families in the developed world have two cars, so an average family easily uses 2-3 or 4 thousand liters of gasoline

A family trip to Rome from London (just an example, 1500 km distance, 3000km two-way) uses cca 300-350 liters of kerosene for a family of four.

Let's say that your well of average family takes two trips like this per year, that is they use 600-700 liters of kerosene vs the 2-3-4 THOUSAND liters they use in their car(s).

I still don't see why we should bash airlines so much.

[philopek]

car vs plane:

An average car runs 15000-20000 km / yr, using 1200-2000 liters of gasoline. Many families in the developed world have two cars, so an average family easily uses 2-3 or 4 thousand liters of gasoline

A family trip to Rome from London (just an example, 1500 km distance, 3000km two-way) uses cca 300-350 liters of kerosene for a family of four.

Let's say that your well of average family takes two trips like this per year, that is they use 600-700 liters of kerosene vs the 2-3-4 THOUSAND liters they use in their car(s).

I still don't see why we should bash airlines so much.

Because the family in your example won't make a triple Rome round-trip per year by car.

I think it was just mentioned above that most air-travel is thousands of miles instead of perhaps hundreds or dozens by car and then if you calculate the many daily flights over 5-12000 km = 10-24000 km round-trips the math looks even worse for air-travel.

Further many passengers travel hundreds of kilometers by car to the airport and again others fly to the hub-airport from smaller airports and then the infrastructure and all ?

Railway stations for one and in most parts are neither heated nor air-conditioned, but airports are

This list i could continue endlessly and last but not least flying became a major hassle anyways. Most people only fly to acquire bragging rights and not standing behind their friends and neighbors when it comes to story telling.

Why else would anyone FLY to a overpopulated holiday resort that is either too hot and at times when climate is way more pleasant at home?

School holidays are only excuses and at the end it simply sounds better to say we go to an exotic or "IN-location" than to the beautiful places that are often around the corner.

EDIT: Out of curiosity, as much as you ask what's the problem with air-travel might be, i'm now interested to know what makes you defend air-travel so much. Either you are a frequent flyer, work or are related to people in the air-travel-business or you did not consider all the factors about air-travel but only mileage and assuming that a trip will take place anyways, either by car from Frankfurt to Hong-Kong or by airplane. (Couln't resist to use a sarc-example)

[grixm]

car vs plane:

An average car runs 15000-20000 km / yr, using 1200-2000 liters of gasoline. Many families in the developed world have two cars, so an average family easily uses 2-3 or 4 thousand liters of gasoline

A family trip to Rome from London (just an example, 1500 km distance, 3000km two-way) uses cca 300-350 liters of kerosene for a family of four.

Let's say that your well of average family takes two trips like this per year, that is they use 600-700 liters of kerosene vs the 2-3-4 THOUSAND liters they use in their car(s).

I still don't see why we should bash airlines so much.

For one, airplane emissions contributes to the greenhouse effect around 2-4 times as much as emissions on the ground. That means that in your example the two trips actually likely equal the cars for a year, despite using less fuel. Secondly, I think having two cars is not as common as you make it seem, at least outside the US. Your mileage is also very high, many modern cars would only consume around 750 liters of gasoline for 15000 km, not to mention electric cars. All this means that for many families, one or two such airplane trips would equal several years of car use.

And finally, for many having a car is necessary, they can't easily get to or from work without it. But flying on a vacation is pure luxury, no one really needs it.

[DrTskoul]

For one, airplane emissions contributes to the greenhouse effect around 2-4 times as much as emissions on the ground.

Source??

[philopek]

For one, airplane emissions contributes to the greenhouse effect around 2-4 times as much as emissions on the ground.

Source??

EDIT: i had to make changes to the post because I mixed two different users, hence the first iteration was inappropriate and i appologize.


I know it's slightly OT but still belongs.

In the wake of air travel comes all the other resource hogging stuff like all the hotels, water resources needed, rental cars and buses needed, waste dumped anywhere in the wild, etc. etc.

All that is related because without unnecessary flying around the globe almost each year by a large number of first world inhabitants, all that related pollution wouldn't happen.

Not talking now about all the SHOW westerners provide to the locals and make them wish to have it too, making the number of cars, mobile phones, computers and others stuff grow manifold.

Tourism is one huge cancer in the organism of planet earth, seconded only by colonization.

[El Cid]

Ok, I am finished here. I state the facts and am immediately accused of having some interest in defending airlines. Can you imagine that some people just love truth/facts for truth's sake? I see you can not. And then when someone asks for a source for a statement - an absolutely normal thing to do in science - you are outraged and basically tell him to bugger off.

This is amazing - in the worst sense of the word. I truly hate fanatisicm whichever side it is coming from, and I see too many fanatics here, who are unable to do a normal argument/conversation. Sad. 

[Klondike Kat]

Ok, I am finished here. I state the facts and am immediately accused of having some interest in defending airlines. Can you imagine that some people just love truth/facts for truth's sake? I see you can not. And then when someone asks for a source for a statement - an absolutely normal thing to do in science - you are outraged and basically tell him to bugger off.

This is amazing - in the worst sense of the word. I truly hate fanatisicm whichever side it is coming from, and I see too many fanatics here, who are unable to do a normal argument/conversation. Sad.

I agree and sympathize with you.  Too many do not want to hear the truth, if it conflicts with their perception.  Keep posting the facts, and let the chips fall where they may.

[wili]

elcid wrote: "... accused of having some interest in defending airlines"

You accused people of 'bashing airlines...'

Sounds rather like you were defending airlines, to me. Just sayin'

(And when the likes of KK rallies to your side, you know then that you are on the wrong side of the argument!  )

[DrTskoul]

For one, airplane emissions contributes to the greenhouse effect around 2-4 times as much as emissions on the ground.

Source??

EDIT: i had to make changes to the post because I mixed two different users, hence the first iteration was inappropriate and i appologize.


I know it's slightly OT but still belongs.

In the wake of air travel comes all the other resource hogging stuff like all the hotels, water resources needed, rental cars and buses needed, waste dumped anywhere in the wild, etc. etc.

All that is related because without unnecessary flying around the globe almost each year by a large number of first world inhabitants, all that related pollution wouldn't happen.

Not talking now about all the SHOW westerners provide to the locals and make them wish to have it too, making the number of cars, mobile phones, computers and others stuff grow manifold.

Tourism is one huge cancer in the organism of planet earth, seconded only by colonization.

population movement in general... like the one that gave rise to Homo Sapiens. Anyway,  my question for a source still holds because I like having facts...

[petm]

I fly several times a year and I'm not planning on stopping. I don't buy carbon offsets for them either (which are total bs).

[wili]

Dr. T: There are lots of variables, but:

"if you are driving a hybrid with a bunch of passengers...you are “four to five times as efficient as a plane over a similar distance."

https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/09/evolving-climate-math-of-flying-vs-driving/

[DrTskoul]

Dr. T: There are lots of variables, but:

"if you are driving a hybrid with a bunch of passengers...you are “four to five times as efficient as a plane over a similar distance."

https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/09/evolving-climate-math-of-flying-vs-driving/

Ok, as was said before I dont know many instances that a car and plane are both an equivalent choice and the plane is preferred. So I dont know if the whole thing is even a valid comparison and argument. Especially for transcontinent and transatlantic trips.  Tourism started with the decrease of travel (general travel) costs. Before airplanes we had coal fired trains and ships.

[petm]

Driving from New York to Iceland would be very low carbon emission (because I wouldn't get far before drowning). Likewise driving to Vancouver (because I wouldn't have time to). Also I don't have a bunch of passengers who want to take exactly the same trips.

[be cause]

I hope El Cid had a parachute .. b.c.

  if only he'd stuck to answering the question .

   I came to read anecdotes and found W.W.We .
                                     

[wili]

Dr.T wrote:

Ok, as was said before I dont know many instances that a car and plane are both an equivalent choice and the plane is preferred. So I dont know if the whole thing is even a valid comparison and argument. Especially for transcontinent and transatlantic trips.  Tourism started with the decrease of travel (general travel) costs. Before airplanes we had coal fired trains and ships.

I agree. And before that, they had oat-fed horses and wind-driven ships...and most people never went more than a few miles from the places they were born (outside of nomadic peoples, merchants and other elites, mass migrations...).

[DrTskoul]

Let's go back then....

[wili]

We're starting to: https://www.ship-technology.com/features/featurewind-propulsion-an-old-concept-with-a-modern-edge-4720167/

The irony is that whenever I see stories about modern, commercial wind propelled large ships, it's always oil f'n tankers! 

I guess that fits the general trend so far which is mostly to use alternative energy to do the bad things we're doing in a 'greener' way!   

[nanning]

Last flight was to Sri Lanka from Amsterdam in august 2000.
I had one of the greatest months of my life there, travelling with the WuShu martial arts group that consisted of mostly teenagers. Our sifu (trainer) was from Sri Lanka so I got a nice peek into their culture and met many beautiful people. Walked a month on my bare feet. No malaria pills or mosquito nets. No hotels, no airco, no meat, no alcohol, no joints.

Let's go back then....

Ooh I am eager to go. If only that would be possible. Alas, we passed the PONR  .

[Rich]

I fly several times a year and I'm not planning on stopping. I don't buy carbon offsets for them either (which are total bs).

How many tons of recreational CO2 emissions associated with that?

My last flight was CA to FL in 2016 to see my father before he passed away. I skipped the funeral.

I grew up in Miami. Now the environmental version of Sodom / Gomorrah. My siblings never left and are the type with big gas guzzling boats. They are in the 50+ ton annual CO2 emission bracket.

[grixm]

For one, airplane emissions contributes to the greenhouse effect around 2-4 times as much as emissions on the ground.

Source??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviation#Total_climate_effects

And they give this as the primary source for that specific statement: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/index.htm

[kassy]

Both modes of transport effect different parts of the atmosphere so it makes no sense to compare just fuel.

Can your car make contrails?

[philopek]

Both modes of transport effect different parts of the atmosphere so it makes no sense to compare just fuel.

Can your car make contrails?

Yes when shot to space on top of a rocket [just a teaser]

[Sterks]

people serious here? What are we supposed to do, stay in a freaking cabin in the middle of a forest?

Aviation is nothing in the CO2 share, nothing. And BTW fuel-cell based or electric planes won't happen. Too heavy. The lightest hidrogen fuel cell is a carbon chain molecule carrying the hidrogen atoms. And batteries light enough, don't know, maybe XXII Century. So accept a future with fossil fuel-based aircraft, or embrace a no future.

Talk about generalizing and subsidizing the installation of electric car garage kit socket and wiring. This will remove as much or more CO2 than aviation produces, even before all plants are renewable.

Bye. :-)

[oren]

Short haul electric planes already becoming available. Long haul could be done using syntethically manufactured fuel made using electricity. The problem as usual is the timeline until ubiquitous deployment of such solutions.
In the meantime, it's obviously better to fly less, as it is to drive less and generally consume less. Of course, your mileage may vary. Literally. I know mine is hard to cut down, having a family with two teenagers and in a country with basically nowhere to vacation to except by short haul flights, I sin every now and then. But I would still be happy if such flights were banned or limited or made more expensive.

[Sterks]

Short haul electric planes already becoming available. Long haul could be done using syntethically manufactured fuel made using electricity. The problem as usual is the timeline until ubiquitous deployment of such solutions.
In the meantime, it's obviously better to fly less, as it is to drive less and generally consume less. Of xourse, your mileage may vary. Literally. I know mine is hard to cut down, having a family with two teenagers and ib a country with basically nowhere to vacation to except bu short haul flights, I sin every now and then. But I would still be happy if such flights were banned or limited or made more expensive.

I agree more or less with you except with the short haul electric planes. Already becoming available you mean 25+ years? And I find those estimates optimistic, as only small vehicles (like a car) with blade propellers and a limited ceiling (so you are at mercy of weather just as current civil aviation) can achieve flight within a few hundred kilometers of range. Not really an aviation breakthrough, rather tastes as a step back.
The transformation of finding a very low weight battery cell technology, applying it to electricity-based engines, and integrating it in a 737-like jet, is so revolutionary that it requires the current biggest manufacturers to disappear, cause they are huge dinosaurs averse to risk incapable of such revolution. Note: the current 737 are essentially the same concept than the ‘60s 737, as long as they are capable to stay in the sky.