GCC: Flying first class on a single domestic round trip can contribute more greenhouse gas emissions than a year of driv

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
2k1Toaster said:
As mentioned, the bad emissions per passenger per miles flown, flying is better than driving. And first class vs. economy is silly. It comes down to "per passenger"....
Click to expand...

Exactly. You're not responsible for the configuration of the aircraft because of your seat selection. I suppose one might argue that if everyone chose to suffer in economy then the airlines would eliminate 1st-class and cram in more seats. Not a practical argument imho.
 
Nubo said:
Exactly. You're not responsible for the configuration of the aircraft because of your seat selection.
Click to expand...
In the medium to long term, you are absolutely responsible for the configuration of the aircraft because of your seat selection. If fewer people fly first class, then the airlines will shrink first class; the airlines reconfigure cabins all the time.

So when you choose to fly 1st class, you are using more airplane space, and are responsible for a greater fraction of the overhead carbon emissions than if you fly coach.

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
In the medium to long term, you are absolutely responsible for the configuration of the aircraft because of your seat selection. If fewer people fly first class, then the airlines will shrink first class; the airlines reconfigure cabins all the time.

So when you choose to fly 1st class, you are using more airplane space, and are responsible for a greater fraction of the overhead carbon emissions than if you fly coach.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
Sounds noble but first class isn't going away no matter how much you suffer in the back.
 
Nubo said:
wwhitney said:
In the medium to long term, you are absolutely responsible for the configuration of the aircraft because of your seat selection. If fewer people fly first class, then the airlines will shrink first class; the airlines reconfigure cabins all the time.

So when you choose to fly 1st class, you are using more airplane space, and are responsible for a greater fraction of the overhead carbon emissions than if you fly coach.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
Sounds noble but first class isn't going away no matter how much you suffer in the back.
Click to expand...


This is about responsibility, not nobility. Big SUVs aren't going away either, but that is no excuse to buy one.
 
LeftieBiker said:
Nubo said:
wwhitney said:
In the medium to long term, you are absolutely responsible for the configuration of the aircraft because of your seat selection. If fewer people fly first class, then the airlines will shrink first class; the airlines reconfigure cabins all the time.

So when you choose to fly 1st class, you are using more airplane space, and are responsible for a greater fraction of the overhead carbon emissions than if you fly coach.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
Sounds noble but first class isn't going away no matter how much you suffer in the back.
Click to expand...


This is about responsibility, not nobility. Big SUVs aren't going away either, but that is no excuse to buy one.
Click to expand...

But the link here is so tenuous as to be meaningless. You are going to have precisely zero effect on airline configuration. I can see avoiding jet flight altogether as a valid strategy. But this idea of "I'll sit in economy so that some future airline will make more efficient use of space"? Come on, man. One's choice of vehicle does make a difference. Being part of the .001% who will think to sit in economy as a long-term environmental strategy, just doesn't. Taking a completely ineffective action doesn't exercise responsibility.
 
One of the quirks of human nature is that the population tends to be affected by the individual even when the link between the two is tenuous at best. If no one thinks to do something different, nothing changes. If one person changes, then a few others change, the change spreads, slowly, across some segments of the population, and change eventually occurs. But not if no one changes first.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bellwether
 
GRA said:
Which is the point being made - first class pax take up more space per pax, thus the a/c can hold fewer people and the energy cost per pax goes up (although it drops some due to the lower weight of pax and fuel AOTBE).

See the comparison chart here for general numbers comparing different modes of travel: https://www.withouthotair.com/c20/page_128.shtml
Click to expand...
It seems to be a lot more complex. Longer flights are more fuel efficient per passenger mile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767

767-400ER
Empty (EW) plane is 103,872 kg.
Payload is 45,813 kg
Fuel is 73,364 kg
Max takeoff MTOW is 204,116 kg

Max passengers is 375 people, at 100kg for person + luggage that is 37500kg

So on a trip to near maximum safe economical range, MTOW-EW-Fuel = 204,116-73,364-103,872= 26880 kg payload, or 268 passengers max. This is why the longest flights have large business class or first class sections. As a large fraction of the fuel is burned at takeoff and initial climb, and a more direct route is likely traveled, one long flight is likely is more fuel efficient per passenger than two shorter flights. The most extreme example is this:

https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media-releases/qantas-new-york-to-sydney-non-stop-research-flight-set-for-take-off/

Which isn't economic, as is beyond that maximum safe economical range. Payload had to be reduced to improve range.

Shorter flights are both far less efficient per passenger mile and are more efficient the more people that can be stuffed on the airplane. So yes, first class costs more if there isn't enough freight to fully load the aircraft to maximum payload. Almost the same cost if the aircraft is near maximum payload.

Complex reality doesn't match simplistic statements.

A train might be almost as fast on a shorter flight, much more efficient and allow much more space per person to reduce the stress of travel.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
Which is the point being made - first class pax take up more space per pax, thus the a/c can hold fewer people and the energy cost per pax goes up (although it drops some due to the lower weight of pax and fuel AOTBE).

See the comparison chart here for general numbers comparing different modes of travel: https://www.withouthotair.com/c20/page_128.shtml
Click to expand...
It seems to be a lot more complex. Longer flights are more fuel efficient per passenger mile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767

767-400ER
Empty (EW) plane is 103,872 kg.
Payload is 45,813 kg
Fuel is 73,364 kg
Max takeoff MTOW is 204,116 kg

Max passengers is 375 people, at 100kg for person + luggage that is 37500kg

So on a trip to near maximum safe economical range, MTOW-EW-Fuel = 204,116-73,364-103,872= 26880 kg payload, or 268 passengers max. This is why the longest flights have large business class or first class sections. As a large fraction of the fuel is burned at takeoff and initial climb, and a more direct route is likely traveled, one long flight is likely is more fuel efficient per passenger than two shorter flights. The most extreme example is this:

https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media-releases/qantas-new-york-to-sydney-non-stop-research-flight-set-for-take-off/

Which isn't economic, as is beyond that maximum safe economical range. Payload had to be reduced to improve range.

Shorter flights are both far less efficient per passenger mile and are more efficient the more people that can be stuffed on the airplane. So yes, first class costs more if there isn't enough freight to fully load the aircraft to maximum payload. Almost the same cost if the aircraft is near maximum payload.

Complex reality doesn't match simplistic statements.

A train might be almost as fast on a shorter flight, much more efficient and allow much more space per person to reduce the stress of travel.
Click to expand...


Actually, there's apparently a range sweet spot that's well short of max. range. I'm not up on the details, but Mackay discusses this lightly, and provides a reference:

Optimizing the hop lengths: long-range planes (designed for a range
of say 15 000 km) are not quite as fuel-efficient as shorter-range planes,
because they have to carry extra fuel, which makes less space for cargo
and passengers. It would be more energy-efficient to fly shorter hops in
shorter-range planes. The sweet spot is when the hops are about 5000 km
long, so typical long-distance journeys would have one or two refuelling
stops (Green, 2006). Multi-stage long-distance flying might be about 15%
more fuel-efficient; but of course it would introduce other costs.
Click to expand...
https://www.withouthotair.com/cC/page_278.shtml

The technical chapter on flight of the above, Chapter C, runs from page 269-282.

The reference is to this:
Green, J. E. (2006).
Civil aviation and the environment – the next frontier for the aerodynamicist. Aeronautical Journal, 110(1110):469–486.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I haven't been able to find a version that isn't behind a paywall.

As for trains, we're in total agreement that high-speed rail is the way to go (where the traffic density will support it) for inter-regional trips up to maybe 400 mile, although that's pushing the current tech. California's HSR plan to connect SF-LA was considered a bit extreme on range to compete with air travel, and that was 380 miles or so IIRR. I've always thought that they were stupid to start with SF-LA; LA-San Diego made a lot more sense given the number of round-trip flights on a daily basis between those two much closer cities. The Texas Triangle and some other city pairs might also make sense for U.S. HSR, but as always, the one area we know has the necessary traffic density to support HSR in the US is the NE corridor. However, the Acela is too slow to be HSR owing to its sharing track with freight and local trains, with the attendant unsuitability of track and competing traffic.
 
Nubo said:
goldbrick said:
The plane uses X gallons of fuel for the trip. X can be divided between relatively few 1st class passengers or many more passengers in economy. At the extreme, you have a private jet. Surely the impact from flying a plane with one passenger is higher than a fully loaded plane, at least on a per-passenger basis.
Click to expand...

And just as surely, the plane is going to take off whether I'm in economy or first-class.
Click to expand...



Mythconceptions

The plane was going anyway, so my flying was energy-neutral.
This is false for two reasons. First, your extra weight on the plane
requires extra energy to be consumed in keeping you up. Second, airlines
respond to demand by flying more planes.
Click to expand...
https://www.withouthotair.com/cC/page_282.shtml

As always, the simplest and most effective means to reduce your transportation (or any other) energy usage is to simply not use it in the first place, i.e. don't take the trip if you don't need to be physically present. Options of reduced effectiveness to that involve various means of taking the trip as efficiently as possible.
 
goldbrick said:
Great explanation Wayne. I have to think the reason airlines charge so much more for business class and 1st class seats than economy is more about the flight costs (much of which is fuel) rather than the extra 2 glasses of wine you get or the nice silverware.
Click to expand...

On traditional airlines (excluding Southwest in the US or RyanAir etc) economy seats generally lose money per seat on ticket price or in some cases barely break even. That's why you have so many fees and extras added on now. The business class and first class seats make the money. The economy seats justify the route in terms of passenger miles since it is more stable. Fly the route because economy seat people demand it, pack the business and first cabins as people need to make profit.

Keep in mind this is because there is the "full fare ticket" pricing for each cabin class. Almost nobody buys that. That's the price that includes a profit for every seat and is proportional to cabin and everything else. On a typical 180pax flight, there might be 2 to 4 people who paid this fare. Think last minute tickets. Most everyone else paid between 20% to 33% of full fare. 20% of a full fare business class seat can still earn a profit for butt-in-seat miles to the airline. A 20% fare in economy generally won't make a profit. Most US Airlines operate so thinly that if there are just a few open seats, they may be losing money on the flight itself. This is why they don't care about economy passengers at all. First class passengers are diamonds they will do anything to keep. Business class passengers are usually hostage to their company's policies or the airline themselves so they treat them nice enough.

The glasses and drinks are maybe what you see, but what you pay for is all the stuff you don't see.
 
LTLFTcomposite said:
Mr. 2k1toaster is hardly alone in racking up those sorts of huge air miles per year. Presumably at that point you don't have an EV for environmental concerns.

Honestly I don't know why Greenpeace isn't picketing at the airports.
Click to expand...

Yes I have my EV and other hybrids because they are a better option environmentally than alternatives. I get no special treatment (no HOV lanes, no closer parking, etc) and drive them just because I want to.

My carbon footprint is big, I know that. But I am not going to go live off-grid in the wilderness to save the planet. I work in industries (and own businesses in those industries) that focus on changing energy efficiency on a larger scale.

Imagine how much power would be saved if every cell phone charger, tablet charger, laptop charger, and every small gadget plugged into the wall was just a percent more efficient. That's the kind of stuff I think needs to be done.

That and I just want to experience the world. Can't do that by 4K TV.
 
2k1Toaster said:
LTLFTcomposite said:
Mr. 2k1toaster is hardly alone in racking up those sorts of huge air miles per year. Presumably at that point you don't have an EV for environmental concerns.

Honestly I don't know why Greenpeace isn't picketing at the airports.
Click to expand...

Yes I have my EV and other hybrids because they are a better option environmentally than alternatives. I get no special treatment (no HOV lanes, no closer parking, etc) and drive them just because I want to.

My carbon footprint is big, I know that. But I am not going to go live off-grid in the wilderness to save the planet. I work in industries (and own businesses in those industries) that focus on changing energy efficiency on a larger scale.

Imagine how much power would be saved if every cell phone charger, tablet charger, laptop charger, and every small gadget plugged into the wall was just a percent more efficient. That's the kind of stuff I think needs to be done.

That and I just want to experience the world. Can't do that by 4K TV.
Click to expand...



Uh, no (I say this as someone who's had all such chargers, TVs and other such Vampire loads on switched power strips and turned off or unplugged except when in active use for more than 25 years, although I did stop unplugging the microwave to eliminate the draw of the clock display :D ):
One of the greatest dangers to society is the phone charger. The BBC News
has been warning us of this since 2005:

“The nuclear power stations will all be switched off in a few
years. How can we keep Britain’s lights on? ... unplug your
mobile-phone charger when it’s not in use.”

Sadly, a year later, Britain hadn’t got the message, and the BBC was forced
to report:

“Britain tops energy waste league.”

And how did this come about? The BBC rams the message home:

“65% of UK consumers leave chargers on.”

From the way reporters talk about these planet-destroying black ob-
jects, it’s clear that they are roughly as evil as Darth Vader. But how evil,
exactly?

In this chapter we’ll find out the truth about chargers. We’ll also in-
vestigate their cousins in the gadget parade: computers, phones, and TVs.
Digital set-top boxes. Cable modems. In this chapter we’ll estimate the
power used in running them and charging them, but not in manufacturing
the toys in the first place – we’ll address that in the later chapter on “stuff.”

The truth about chargers

Modern phone chargers, when left plugged in with no phone attached,
use about half a watt. In our preferred units, this is a power consump-
tion of about 0.01 kWh per day. For anyone whose consumption stack is
over 100 kWh per day, the BBC’s advice, always unplug the phone charger,
could potentially reduce their energy consumption by one hundredth of
one percent (if only they would do it).

Every little helps!

I don’t think so. Obsessively switching off the phone-charger is like bailing
the Titanic with a teaspoon. Do switch it off, but please be aware how tiny
a gesture it is. Let me put it this way:

All the energy saved in switching off your charger for one day
is used up in one second of car-driving.

The energy saved in switching off the charger for one year is
equal to the energy in a single hot bath.
Click to expand...
https://www.withouthotair.com/c11/page_68.shtml


You can read the whole chapter (pages 68-72) or just have a look at the chart on page 70, showing typical energy use for various gadgets: https://www.withouthotair.com/c11/page_70.shtml

BTW, American per-capita energy use is 250kWh/day. That's for all energy and all uses, not just personal or electricity use.
 
My carbon footprint is big, I know that. But I am not going to go live off-grid in the wilderness to save the planet.
Click to expand...


This is called the "False Dichotomy" argument. It posits that there are only two choices in a situation in which there are usually many. You combine that with hyperbole above to make it seem that only hermits choose not to frequently fly first class by jet. We all know that this is not the case - you are just trying to rationalize your choices and preferences.
 
GRA said:
2k1Toaster said:
LTLFTcomposite said:
Mr. 2k1toaster is hardly alone in racking up those sorts of huge air miles per year. Presumably at that point you don't have an EV for environmental concerns.

Honestly I don't know why Greenpeace isn't picketing at the airports.
Click to expand...

Yes I have my EV and other hybrids because they are a better option environmentally than alternatives. I get no special treatment (no HOV lanes, no closer parking, etc) and drive them just because I want to.

My carbon footprint is big, I know that. But I am not going to go live off-grid in the wilderness to save the planet. I work in industries (and own businesses in those industries) that focus on changing energy efficiency on a larger scale.

Imagine how much power would be saved if every cell phone charger, tablet charger, laptop charger, and every small gadget plugged into the wall was just a percent more efficient. That's the kind of stuff I think needs to be done.

That and I just want to experience the world. Can't do that by 4K TV.
Click to expand...



Uh, no (I say this as someone who's had all such chargers, TVs and other such Vampire loads on switched power strips and turned off or unplugged except when in active use for more than 25 years, although i did stop unplugging the microwave to eliminate the draw of the clock display :D ):
One of the greatest dangers to society is the phone charger. The BBC News
has been warning us of this since 2005:

“The nuclear power stations will all be switched off in a few
years. How can we keep Britain’s lights on? ... unplug your
mobile-phone charger when it’s not in use.”

Sadly, a year later, Britain hadn’t got the message, and the BBC was forced
to report:

“Britain tops energy waste league.”

And how did this come about? The BBC rams the message home:

“65% of UK consumers leave chargers on.”

From the way reporters talk about these planet-destroying black ob-
jects, it’s clear that they are roughly as evil as Darth Vader. But how evil,
exactly?

In this chapter we’ll find out the truth about chargers. We’ll also in-
vestigate their cousins in the gadget parade: computers, phones, and TVs.
Digital set-top boxes. Cable modems. In this chapter we’ll estimate the
power used in running them and charging them, but not in manufacturing
the toys in the first place – we’ll address that in the later chapter on “stuff.”

The truth about chargers

Modern phone chargers, when left plugged in with no phone attached,
use about half a watt. In our preferred units, this is a power consump-
tion of about 0.01 kWh per day. For anyone whose consumption stack is
over 100 kWh per day, the BBC’s advice, always unplug the phone charger,
could potentially reduce their energy consumption by one hundredth of
one percent (if only they would do it).

Every little helps!

I don’t think so. Obsessively switching off the phone-charger is like bailing
the Titanic with a teaspoon. Do switch it off, but please be aware how tiny
a gesture it is. Let me put it this way:

All the energy saved in switching off your charger for one day
is used up in one second of car-driving.

The energy saved in switching off the charger for one year is
equal to the energy in a single hot bath.
Click to expand...
https://www.withouthotair.com/c11/page_68.shtml


You can read the whole chapter (pages 68-72) or just have a look at the chart on page 70, showing typical energy use for various gadgets: https://www.withouthotair.com/c11/page_70.shtml

BTW, American per-capita energy use is 250kWh/day. That's for all energy and all uses, not just personal or electricity use.
Click to expand...

Not just cell phone chargers. Everything plugged into the wall that consumes less than a couple hundred watts. Chargers yes. That microwave. TV's. Overhead light fixtures. The point is not to make you have to unplug it, because people don't. The point is that while it is plugged in and always on, it consumes less power. And it does so automatically because that's what comes with your thing. It is a big problem that most of the regulatory agencies are working on as well as the big power electronics sections within companies.
 
LeftieBiker said:
My carbon footprint is big, I know that. But I am not going to go live off-grid in the wilderness to save the planet.
Click to expand...


This is called the "False Dichotomy" argument. It posits that there are only two choices in a situation in which there are usually many. You combine that with hyperbole above to make it seem that only hermits choose not to frequently fly first class by jet. We all know that this is not the case - you are just trying to rationalize your choices and preferences.
Click to expand...

To someone who circumnavigates the globe tens of times a year, those that don't fly are very much closer to hermits than those that do. It's all relative.

I put my resources and energy into making the planet better on large scales, not small scale individualistic choices. But when I can do something individually that's beneficial and not against what I am trying to do overall, I do it. I pay double the electric rates to "purchase" wind power. Really I am just spending more for coal and natural gas to the utility company who spends it installing wind and solar elsewhere. But it works. I have a huge solar array on the only property I have that gets sun. I drive hybrids and EV's. Etc. But I also work with major corporations that sell 200-300 million units of "charger stuffs" a year, every year, to make it better.

So yes a simple change could save 500MWh a year of vampire power. But the real savings is when it is in use. For example the power supply that powers your TV or DVR or laptop or whatever is usually 80% on the low end or counterfeit devices. They can peak up to 90% to 92% usually. But for most times when in use, they are in the mid-80%'s. By making that average efficiency low-90%'s that's TWh's a year saved and consumers don't have to do anything. It is all "free" savings since it just happens by being included with the stuff you buy. I as an individual cannot save even 1TWh of power usage over my lifetime no matter how hermit-like I try to be.

We need people solving the problem from both sides. From the ground up and from the sky down. I am just not a ground up type person.
 
I'll not add to what I wrote earlier, except to note that Al Gore does much the same thing, and is widely loathed as a "hypocrite." If you want to effect change while indulging your personal preferences, that's a good thing. Adding to that being a good example would be an even better thing. Nobody's perfect. I'm certainly not.
 
This idea that people who haven't traveled the world are unenlightened isn't new. I've always enjoyed seeing new places and been to a few but looking out the window at those giant turbofans belching CO2 has given me pause. It would be fun to see Australia or a bunch of other places and could afford to but increasingly I find myself asking "what if everyone did that?"
 
https://www.withouthotair.com/c29/page_229.shtml
Individual action

People sometimes ask me “What should I do?” Table 29.3 indicates eight
simple personal actions I’d recommend, and a very rough indication of the
savings associated with each action. Terms and conditions apply. Your
savings will depend on your starting point. The numbers in table 29.3
assume the starting point of an above-average consumer.

Simple action possible saving

Put on a woolly jumper and turn down your heat-
ing’s thermostat (to 15 or 17 °C, say). Put individual
thermostats on all radiators. Make sure the heating’s
off when no-one’s at home. Do the same at work. 20 kWh/d

[GRA's actions: I've long done this, although it's only set that low (59-62.6 deg. F.) when I'm going to sleep, and I'd typically have it at 20 deg. C/68 deg. F. when I'm awake. I keep the stove and gas wall furnace pilots off from about April to November. I relit the former in late-September and the latter Nov. 3rd, and so far this fall haven't had to turn the furnace on owing to good insulation, passive solar and warmer than normal weather].

Read all your meters (gas, electricity, water) every
week, and identify easy changes to reduce consump-
tion (e.g., switching things off). Compare competi-
tively with a friend. Read the meters at your place of
work too, creating a perpetual live energy audit. 4 kWh/d

[GRA: Not really a useful option currently as I share a meter with the main house, although I know our combined usage of electricity is quite low even in winter, averaging about 5kWh/day. Gas is another matter, but I have no control over their consumption].

Stop flying. 35 kWh/d

[GRA: Since 2001, although I never did a lot of commercial flying - it was mostly private planes].

Drive less, drive more slowly, drive more gently, car-
pool, use an electric car, join a car club, cycle, walk,
use trains and buses. 20 kWh/d

GRA: 68k miles in my almost 17 y.o. bought new ICE car, only 12k over the past 8 years, but that doesn't include trips with others in their cars, so that might boost my total car mileage to 18k or, being really generous, 24k for that period. albeit at double or more the pax. mpg. Drive more slowly, no. Drive more gently, always except when I really need to get somewhere soonest. Car pool, no, my bike's my commute vehicle. Electric car, not yet. Car club (MaaS?), no. Cycle, Yes, anything within 3 and usually 5 miles, longer if I've got the time/want the exercise. Walk, yes, anything within 0.5 and up to 1.0 mile, with the bike phasing in over that distance. Use trains and buses, yes for electric trains (BART) for intra-regional trips beyond bike range, and/or in conjunction with same].

Keep using old gadgets (e.g. computers); don’t re-
place them early. 4 kWh/d

[GRA: Always, but as for computers, when my last laptop died I didn't replace it, and now just use public computers in libraries, which is where I'm typing this. Keeps me from spending inordinate amounts of my free time online and/or playing video games, and I also walk or cycle to the library so get the health benefits].

Change lights to fluorescent or LED. 4 kWh/d

[GRA: Bought my last incandescent bulb around 1989, when I bought my first CFL. The latter cost $20-$28 then. Bought my first LEDs recently, and have been gradually replacing the CFLs as they burn out. The CFLs get recycled at the local household haz. waste facility, presumably keeping their mercury out of the environment].

Don’t buy clutter. Avoid packaging. 20 kWh/d

[GRA: Less than I should, but I do try to avoid it].

Eat vegetarian, six days out of seven. 10 kWh/d

[GRA: I'm a flexitarian rather than a vegetarian, but I do eat a lot less meat than I used to, although I do eat a fair amount of cheese and yogurt. I haven't checked in a while, but I'd guesstimate I go meatless four or five days a week now].

Whereas the above actions are easy to implement, the ones in table 29.4
take a bit more planning, determination, and money.

Major action possible saving

Eliminate draughts. 5 kWh/d
Double glazing. 10 kWh/d
Improve wall, roof, and floor insulation. 10 kWh/d
Solar hot water panels. 8 kWh/d
Photovoltaic panels. 5 kWh/d
Knock down old building and replace by new. 35 kWh/d
Replace fossil-fuel heating by ground-source or
air-source heat pumps. 10 kWh/d

Finally, table 29.5 shows a few runners-up: some simple actions with
small savings.

Action possible saving

Wash laundry in cold water. 0.5 kWh/d
Stop using a tumble-dryer; use a clothes-line
or airing cupboard. 0.5 kWh/d
Click to expand...

[GRA: Most of these are beyond my control here being a renter, but I did make sure this place was well-insulated (as well as being quite small, only about 350 ft.^2) before moving in, and I employ movable insulation in the windows and passive solar techniques as needed year-round. I also do my washes in warm or cold water and use a clothesline, not only for the free energy but because clothes last longer than when using a dryer.


No one is perfect, and we all make decisions as to what we can and are willing to do based on our lifestyles and circumstances. Whenever I feel any tendency whatsoever to feel holier than someone else, I remind myself that as someone living in the U.S., regardless of how low my direct personal energy use is, my share of the energy used to just run all of our infrastructure, including the internet, heat, electricity, roads, water, sewers, manufacturing, transport of goods etc., is still greater than the total per-capita energy consumption of the average European, never mind the far lower per-capita consumption of someone in China (although rapidly increasing), let alone a resident of a country like India.
 
Amen on not being holier than anyone else. Everyone has to live in the world as it is. Even AOC the green new dealer admitted as much when challenged - at least Greta took her life in her hands and came here on a sailboat, something I'm guessing one would only dare a few select months of the year.

Therein lies the we're-all-screwedness in it all. At the end of the day does it really matter if someone believes in CC/AGW vs being a denier if they're f***ing over the climate at warp speed either way?
 
LTLFTcomposite said:
and came here on a sailboat, something I'm guessing one would only dare a few select months of the year.
Click to expand...

Sailboats cross the Atlantic in all seasons. Different routes in different seasons, and the conditions varies with both seasons and routes. The summer, when Greta crossed, is in some ways the least favorable time for Europe to North America.

Winter, with little risk of tropical storms, Europe to the Americans, "sail south until the butter melts and then follow the trade winds". Easiest passage. Lowest risk. Smoothest seas. A reasonable passage time. Thousands of small sailboats cross every winter. Head north after winter ends.

Spring was the best time for sailing ships from Europe to the USA before the steamships. Fastest average passage. Little risk of tropic storms. Less risk of strong storms along the coast of North America.

Summer. Easiest time to return to Europe.

Summer Europe to North America, take a northern passage to reduce tropical storm risk. Great circle route or close to it. Headwinds most of the time. There may be a steady stream of low pressure systems. Might even be the remains of a tropical storm to dodge or play. If you have a fast boat that can point close to the wind, and can play the weather systems just right, this can be the very fastest passage. Greta crossed in 15 days. That is fast.

A sample of ship arrival times from the 1800s. Note that SS, Steamer or Steam Ships are more common in the later half. Steam ships in the 1800's were mostly sail powered in the early days, and mostly steam by 1900. Sailing ships arrived in North America from Europe in every month.

https://immigrantships.net/1800/index.html

Norway to NY and Canada passage statistics. Compare with Greta's 15 days. Yes, Norway is a bit farther away.

http://www.norwayheritage.com/articles/templates/voyages.asp?articleid=37&zoneid=6

Oh, and a more detailed record of a sailing ship's travels.

http://www.norwayheritage.com/p_ship.asp?sh=sleia
 

Similar threads

G
ABG: When do electric vehicles become cleaner than gasoline cars? This comparison shows your 'break-even' point
Replies
16
Views
11K
oxothuk
O
G
GCC: IEA report calls for no investment in new fossil fuel supply and end to sales of ICE cars by 2035
Replies
0
Views
3K
GRA
G
G
GCC: EPA: US GHG fell 0.5% y-o-y in 2017; power sector down by 4.2%, transportation up 1.21%
Replies
0
Views
1K
GRA
G
G
GCC: Emissions Analytics: mass adoption of hybrids, rather than low-volume BEVs most effective for cutting CO2 now, meet
Replies
14
Views
5K
GRA
G
G
GCC: Port of Los Angeles surpasses 2023 pollution reduction targets five years ahead of schedule; NOx down 60% from 2005
Replies
0
Views
2K
GRA
G

Latest posts

Back
Top