The future of flying - Electric planes or bans on flying?

[Bantamzen]

I presume you are not against all laws altogether.

I am no sure how this is relevant to this debate? But since you asked it all depends on the nature of the laws being brought in.

I don't think Bantamzen is an anarchist, any more than anybody else trying to make some sense of the current madness is.

The pandemic demonstrated quite readily how legislators, if allowed, can introduce measures which restrict people from engaging in what were hitherto seemingly inalienable rights. People had to have a "reasonable excuse" to leave their homes; they could not invite anybody (bar a few very limited exceptions) into theirs; businesses and hospitality outlets which they used were closed by edict; schools were closed. We all know what happened. We were told they were temporary (though they turned out to be slightly less temporary than we were initially led to believe). All this happened with the stroke of a Minister's pen.

Travelling by air is an intrinsic part of modern life. We cannot "uninvent" the aeroplane. Many people engage in it for all sorts of reasons - some may be deemed as necessary, others deemed not so. So there is the problem of who decides which necessary and which isn't? But surely we can trust a government to sort that out? Or perhaps not.

During the pandemic, Ministers decided that leaving home without an excuse wasn't necessary. You could do without it. They decided that going to work (if you could undertake your job from home) wasn't necessary. You could do without it. Inviting friends and family into your home wasn't necessary. You could do without it. In fact meeting other people outdoors wasn't necessary. You could do without it. Visiting dying relatives in hospital wasn't necessary. You could do without it.

So some might be forgiven for being extremely suspicious of the notion that decisions about which journeys by air are necessary and which are not would be taken reasonably and fairly. Ministers who decided that people must not leave home without an excuse would have little reticence to impose a ban on flying. And, unlike the pandemic restrictions - which were (eventually) temporary - these would be permanent.

There is a simmering but determined campaign to stop people moving about. Far better they stay where they live and go no further than they can manage on a push bike or walk. Bad luck for those getting on in years who find the first impossible and the second somewhat difficult beyond a small distance. Car travel is vilified but air travel is akin to slaying every first-born. But travelling about is as "unnecessary" as leaving home without an excuse. It's what people do. Other strategies must be devised to prevent harmful emissions because preventing people moving about simply will not do.

Exactly. Those clamouring for restrictions in air travel simply do not grasp, or at least ignore the concept that allowing some form of legislation determine what is and what is not "necessary" activity is the thin edge of a wedge that we do not want. During the pandemic restrictions it was clear that some people actually preferred society being placed under restrictions, and certainly some in the wider social media world have continued to call for covid-like restrictions to slow our impact on the planet. Which is why I increasingly look with suspicion at those people who refuse the concept of innovation to tackle our impact in favour of simply restricting what ordinary, hard working people do. It has more that a political feel to it all.

Slap a tax on polluting activities or ration them and people can choose which they want to prioritise - ride a bike to work so that you can afford to fly away, or own a gas-guzzler and take your holidays in Pontins.

Taxes are blunt tools which almost always have a more detrimental effect on the less well off, whilst those that can afford to find ways around them. Accountants, at least ones good at their profession are usually light years ahead of politicians.

So no.

Placing restrictions on air travel isn't like directly placing restrictions upon an individual. You don't need a police officer issuing a £10,000 FPN to stop someone flying if the flight either doesn't exist or has been priced out of their reach.

Yes it is. How about we cut and tax rail travel? So we don't need Eurostar for a start do we? Nobody needs to go to Paris or Brussels do they, and if they do they can get a bus or ride a bike to the coast and get a boat, or swim. And for that matter we probably don't need most long distance trains, we could just concentrate on commuter trains where you have to prove your journey is essential. Oh and heritage railways, they are definitely not needed, especially those polluting steam trains....

Sounds daft right? Well this would be the next step on the journey of those who want to restrict our lives, and if they get their way and get aviation out of the way, long distance & leisure travel will be high up on the agendas. Because even if aviation got heavily restrictions all the same issues of mankind's impact on the environment would still exist, and the people driving for nothing more than stopping people doing things will have gained more traction. Maybe you are more comfortable with this, I and many others are not.

Travel is a freedom that should not easily be given up. But moreover it is linked into economies all over the world, and the livelihoods of hundreds of millions rely on it either directly or indirectly. And unless someone here, or indeed elsewhere can solve the economic quandary that would be how do you replace all that lost income and all those jobs, then I will remain immovable in my convictions.

 

[Krokodil]

Yes it is.

No it isn't. Increasing taxes on flying is nothing like telling people that they can't play in their own front garden.

How about we cut and tax rail travel?

In proportion to emissions?

Let's see, if you want to make a return trip from London to Glasgow by train you'll emit 64kg (per person). In an efficient petrol car 237kg (for all passengers) and by plane 368kg. Shall we say £1/kg as a convenient round figure to hypothesise on? That flight just got very expensive, but the train is a bargain by comparison.

Eurostar's emissions are even lower, thanks to the French nuclear grid.

A first class return flight to Hong Kong racks up 13,900kg which is twice the annual emissions of the average Brit. Stick that same taxation rate on that flight and you'll see Economy seats dramatically increasing in popularity.

Incidentally I find your "if you want to tax/cut a big polluter, why don't you tax/cut a negligible polluter?" as ridiculous as Peter Griffin going "have a whole carton of cigarettes". I don't know why you keep reciting it, it's not an effective argument.

And unless someone here, or indeed elsewhere can solve the economic quandary that would be how do you replace all that lost income and all those jobs, then I will remain immovable in my convictions.

Are you opposed to all progress? Are you equally concerned for all of the unemployed lamp-lighters waiting for gas to make a comeback?

What about chimney sweeps and coal merchants, should we not have brought in the Clean Air Act incase it put anyone out of work?

 

[Bantamzen]

No it isn't. Increasing taxes on flying is nothing like telling people that they can't play in their own front garden.


In proportion to emissions?

Let's see, if you want to make a return trip from London to Glasgow by train you'll emit 64kg (per person). In an efficient petrol car 237kg (for all passengers) and by plane 368kg. Shall we say £1/kg as a convenient round figure to hypothesise on? That flight just got very expensive, but the train is a bargain by comparison.

Eurostar's emissions are even lower, thanks to the French nuclear grid.

A first class return flight to Hong Kong racks up 13,900kg which is twice the annual emissions of the average Brit. Stick that same taxation rate on that flight and you'll see Economy seats dramatically increasing in popularity.

Incidentally I find your "if you want to tax/cut a big polluter, why don't you tax/cut a negligible polluter?" as ridiculous as Peter Griffin going "have a whole carton of cigarettes". I don't know why you keep reciting it, it's not an effective argument.

<Whooosh>

That's the sound of my point going way over your head.

Are you opposed to all progress? Are you equally concerned for all of the unemployed lamp-lighters waiting for gas to make a comeback?

What about chimney sweeps and coal merchants, should we not have brought in the Clean Air Act incase it put anyone out of work?

How is stifling travel progress? How is wreaking economies around the globe progress? Progress would be say developing more efficient power units (happening), or improving how aviation plans routing (happening).

Oh and before you dig out the more coal industry comparisons, you might first want to research what happened to coal towns when the mines were shut with no other economic replacement for those areas. Spoiler alert, it didn't end well for many.

 

[Krokodil]

How is wreaking economies around the globe progress?

And wildfires and sea level rise aren't going to wreck economies?

Progress would be say developing more efficient power units (happening), or improving how aviation plans routing (happening).

Progress would be more high speed rail to allow passengers to continue to make short-haul journeys without polluting the atmosphere in the process. Aviation becoming more efficient is a good thing, but any gains are being wiped out by the endless growth.

 

[Bantamzen]

And wildfires and sea level rise aren't going to wreck economies?

Yes, but shutting down things like aviation will wreck many a lot quicker and will could well damage their ability to meet the demands being made of them by the people shutting them down. A bit like some environmentalists campaign against HS2 and helping in part to increase the cost of it, ultimately leading to much of it being canned.

Progress would be more high speed rail to allow passengers to continue to make short-haul journeys without polluting the atmosphere in the process. Aviation becoming more efficient is a good thing, but any gains are being wiped out by the endless growth.

So long as development of efficiencies means that emission reduce quicker than flight growth, then the overall impact reduces. And at some point in the future I've little doubt that non-carbon solutions for power units will be found.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Oh and before you dig out the more coal industry comparisons, you might first want to research what happened to coal towns when the mines were shut with no other economic replacement for those areas. Spoiler alert, it didn't end well for many.

Do you therefore, retrospectively, oppose moves away from coal?

 

[Bantamzen]

Do you therefore, retrospectively, oppose moves away from coal?

Given what we know today, no. However that's not to say simply running it into the ground was a good idea either. We spent many years importing coal even though plenty lay in our own mines, whilst entire communities were left high and dry with no economic alternatives to earn a living save moving away or claiming benefits. I lived in one such town that had a very profitable mine shut down, and many of my neighbours worked in and around the industry. And we are talking skilled jobs here, miners were not just shovel swingers, the industry had many very technically skilled people in it. What was left post-closures was a mad scramble for a handful of jobs elsewhere that were available at the time, with some leaving these shores altogether to work engineering jobs abroad, with the rest fighting over what scraps of jobs were left locally. And there were not that many.

Yet even now, two decades after the green agendas and initial targets were set we still struggle to make most use out of green energy because we do not have the infrastructure to store this energy when generated for use widely when it is needed. And frankly that happened because too many were focused on the end result, not the application. Too many people trying to save the planet, too few actually applying the engineering to do it. Its a sadly typical tale of 21st century environmentalism, too many clipboard holders and bean counters, not enough solution delivering people.

But none of this is particularly relevant for this debate. Aviation is just one part of a global economic network of businesses and industry that generate hundreds of billions of dollars a year, supporting hundreds of millions of jobs. So you cannot simply switch it off, or drastically reduce it without serious, and immediate consequences globally. And frankly for most of the applications aviation is used for, there is no alternative. So its here to stay. Hopefully in the not too distant future better means of fuel power units in aircraft will be found, but for now the industry will have to continue to innovate at pace. And at least they do....

 

[eldomtom2]

Yet even now, two decades after the green agendas and initial targets were set we still struggle to make most use out of green energy because we do not have the infrastructure to store this energy when generated for use widely when it is needed. And frankly that happened because too many were focused on the end result, not the application. Too many people trying to save the planet, too few actually applying the engineering to do it. Its a sadly typical tale of 21st century environmentalism, too many clipboard holders and bean counters, not enough solution delivering people.

You do appreciate that wind and solar is primarily being installed by for-profit companies, right?

 

[Bantamzen]

You do appreciate that wind and solar is primarily being installed by for-profit companies, right?

Well thank you for that insight. In all my 50-some years on this planet I thought that power was generated by magical pixies for the good of humanity, and that bills for energy and installations were just voluntary contributions towards supplying fairy dust....

However sarcastic exchanges aside, for profit companies are generally demand driven. So they seek out current and potential markets that they can compete in. So for example when we committed to reducing the nation's carbon footprint, everyone turned their attention to EVs. The more we have the quicker emissions go down, right? The market certainly responded, with numerous new EVs being designed with ever improving efficiency and range. Problem solved right? Well except for one teeny tiny problem, infrastructure. So obsessed by driving ICE vehicle numbers down were politicians and campaigners, that they never considered the small problem of getting electricity to many of these cars. Nobody considered that a large scale take up of EVs would require a large scale implementation of publicly available charging points, because of course everyone will just charge on their drives right? Well except those that don't have drives.... Whoops...

Private industry did respond by starting to install limited numbers, but they were testing the market, not knowing if there would be a sizeable market owning. So the net result was much fewer charging points available than were probably going to be needed to meet a growing demand, a demand that would only grow if people without drives had places they could overnight charge at. The end result is a growing EV market, but perhaps not a the pace most would like because prices aren't as competitive because many people aren't sure they can reliably charge them. And I'm sorry to say the same is true of renewable energy, we charged ahead with generation but paid a lot less attention to storage and distribution, especially for solar given that in out country daylight hours vary wildly over a year.

Herein lies my point. It is not enough to stare at some utopian future where your solution just works. You have to consider the "how" as well as, and maybe more than the "what". And you have to tackle those "how" problems, not just ignore them and hope they go away. In the case of aviation the "how" problems lie around how you replace large sections of global economies if you propose to take aviation at least partially out of the picture. If you can't, then perhaps it is not the right solution at all and you should seek an alternative. And that's my take.

 

[eldomtom2]

And I'm sorry to say the same is true of renewable energy, we charged ahead with generation but paid a lot less attention to storage and distribution, especially for solar given that in out country daylight hours vary wildly over a year.

You do realise that, e.g., the owner of a solar power plant does not make money if they can't deliver their electricity to customers?

And you have to tackle those "how" problems, not just ignore them and hope they go away

And you are ignoring the "how" problem of how to deal with climate change.

 

[Bantamzen]

You do realise that, e.g., the owner of a solar power plant does not make money if they can't deliver their electricity to customers?

Its quite clear you don't want to debate, just to have your particular views validated. I have raised serious, real world issues that stand between moving to a more sustainable future, without tanking economies. These issues aren't going to go away, and I am happy to discuss with anyone what they are and how they might be mitigated, although some discussion might be best taken to another thread if they aren't directly related to aviation. If you just want to snipe, there are plenty of other social media resources where you can do this.

And you are ignoring the "how" problem of how to deal with climate change.

Do you ever read anything I write? I have stated directly above that you have to tackle both the solution and the application of the solution. I really don't know what you are struggling with in any of that.

 

[eldomtom2]

Do you ever read anything I write? I have stated directly above that you have to tackle both the solution and the application of the solution. I really don't know what you are struggling with in any of that.

You are consistently evasive when the question "What if there are no good options?" is posed.

 

[Bald Rick]

And I'm sorry to say the same is true of renewable energy, we charged ahead with generation but paid a lot less attention to storage and distribution, especially for solar given that in out country daylight hours vary wildly over a year.

Agreed historically, but now many (perhaps even most) commercial solar farms are coming with 2hrs of their peak capacity in battery storage.

Storage is more of an issue with wind, as that is more variable. But essentially we are using interconnectors for that, and will be doing much more so as more wind comes on line.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just chucking something in here, I went to see Simon Reeve's book tour on Monday, and he made a point that I suspect Bantamzen would agree with (though I don't have any proof it's correct) - which was something along the lines that for an average person "greening" their pension investments would likely result in lower carbon emissions than giving up flying. Now obviously one can do both, and he is a prolific travellers so would be looking to justify it, but if true it does play into @Bantamzen's hand a little.

 

[Krokodil]

Herein lies my point. It is not enough to stare at some utopian future where your solution just works. You have to consider the "how" as well as, and maybe more than the "what". And you have to tackle those "how" problems, not just ignore them and hope they go away. In the case of aviation the "how" problems lie around how you replace large sections of global economies if you propose to take aviation at least partially out of the picture. If you can't, then perhaps it is not the right solution at all and you should seek an alternative. And that's my take.

So what are you proposing? Because the present situation isn't working. You need to tackle the "how" too. How are you going to reduce carbon emissions at the same time as allowing the developing world to enjoy the same lifestyles we take for granted?

 

[Bantamzen]

So what are you proposing? Because the present situation isn't working. You need to tackle the "how" too. How are you going to reduce carbon emissions at the same time as allowing the developing world to enjoy the same lifestyles we take for granted?

I'm not proposing anything, I don't have the answers. That's for younger and brighter engineering minds to solve.

But what I do know is that you can't just shut down large parts of an economic system without serious consequences. And amazingly some here have seemingly already forgotten that we've seen just such consequences in the last three years, and this was only for a limited period. What is being proposed here is a permanent slowdown or even shutdown of a system that drives large economies around the world. So we know what will happen if this goes ahead, and we know it will have an almost immediate effect.

Therefore it is up to those proposing limiting aviation to tackle the fundamental issue of how do you replace the economic impact of such a measure. Man made climate change does need solutions, but not ones that cause more problems than they solve.

Just chucking something in here, I went to see Simon Reeve's book tour on Monday, and he made a point that I suspect Bantamzen would agree with (though I don't have any proof it's correct) - which was something along the lines that for an average person "greening" their pension investments would likely result in lower carbon emissions than giving up flying. Now obviously one can do both, and he is a prolific travellers so would be looking to justify it, but if true it does play into @Bantamzen's hand a little.

I don't really know enough about greening pension investments, but if this resulted in helping invest in actual green energy R&D and innovation then it would be a good thing.

Further edit:

I'm just going to add this, as it often feels like people treat the issue of climate change as a binary one, i.e. you are either fully onboard with anything and everything suggested, or your are a denier.

So I'm not a climate change denier, nor I am proposing doing nothing. What I am saying is that every solution put forward needs to be impacted, there's no point implementing a change for it only to cause more problems than it solves. A great case in point is HS2, after years of wrangling over the exact route, should it go over or under ground, newt habitats, NIMBY objections over house prices and more consultations than even a supercomputer could easily calculate, the net result is that it ended up costing way more than it should. And this has now led to most of it being canned, including the bits that might have helped soak up some domestic air travel. So in a small way, environmental concerns amongst others have led to a possible solution to reducing aviation being less viable. Unintended consequences!

With this in mind global aviation is totally wired into economies around the world, and unhooking large parts of it will almost immediately have detrimental effects on those most heavily reliant on or around aviation. So detrimental economic effects could mean less money sloshing around in many countries who are not as up to speed on working towards greener solutions, which in turn could mean a pushback on these because their respective governments will be more concerned with their citizens being unemployed and potential unrest as a result. This is just one possible unintended consequence of many, which is why the issue cannot be ignored. And that's my position, if it still isn't clear to anyone then I'm sorry but I can't be much clearer on my position.

 

[eldomtom2]

I'm not proposing anything, I don't have the answers. That's for younger and brighter engineering minds to solve.

Then I'm sorry, how is this vague waving at innovation any different from "staring at some utopian future where your solution just works"?

 

[Bantamzen]

Then I'm sorry, how is this vague waving at innovation any different from "staring at some utopian future where your solution just works"?

Because innovation requires the kind of critical thinking that is needed to solve issues like climate change. Telling everyone else they have to stop doing things, and perhaps lose their livelihoods doesn't.

 

[eldomtom2]

Because innovation requires the kind of critical thinking that is needed to solve issues like climate change. Telling everyone else they have to stop doing things, and perhaps lose their livelihoods doesn't.

I would say that blindly saying "innovation will save us all" shows a lack of critical thinking myself...

 

[Bantamzen]

I would say that blindly saying "innovation will save us all" shows a lack of critical thinking myself...

Yeah I know you would. You've made it perfectly clear that innovation is not the way, despite it always having been the way. Which is why I hope your views are not the ones taken forward, because all they will do is make things even worse and solve very little.

 

[eldomtom2]

despite it always having been the way.

And your source for that is?

 

[Enthusiast]

I would say that blindly saying "innovation will save us all" shows a lack of critical thinking myself...

I don't think there's too much "critical thinking" among the climate change lobby. So far as I can see, it consists almost entirely of persuading people (or sometimes demanding) that they stop doing things: stop burning fossil fuels for energy (though quite OK to burn 7m tons of freshly felled timber in Yorkshire every year); stop driving an IC car; stop flying; stop eating meat; stop extracting gas and oil; stop making steel. The list seems to grow every day.

The same "critical thinking" is being shown with climate change as was shown during the pandemic. There was a focus on one thing - to stop the virus spreading. So focussed was this that scarcely any other consideration was made. No study on the effect of the economy, other health problems, people's mental wellbeing, children's education - nothing. And we all know how that turned out.

Instead of a "stop...stop...stop" mentality, innovations need to developed which allow most of the activities currently undertaken to continue. It is simply unacceptable to say (as some on here have suggested) that civil aviation must be curtailed to such a degree that large sections of the economies of many nations will be thrown to the wolves in order to achieve a largely unachievable target by an arbitrary date. Other things do matter. There is no point in burning your house down to rid yourself of a wasps' nest.

Aviation is the classic "low hanging fruit". It's seen as frivolous, unnecessary and (seemingly to some) easily sacrificed with minimal side effects. It isn't and like all other things related to the climate change industry, it needs careful consideration.

And your source for that is?

The evidence is all around you. All the progression and improvements to human lives have virtually always been due to some sort of innovation. Problems which humans have encountered have been countered by innovation. Few have been approached with the sort of mania that seems abundant in the climate change debate. Few have been met with the downright dismissal of contrary views. Apart, that is, from the problem encountered in the early months of 2020.

 

[Krokodil]

I don't think there's too much "critical thinking" among the climate change lobby. So far as I can see, it consists almost entirely of persuading people (or sometimes demanding) that they stop doing things: stop burning fossil fuels for energy (though quite OK to burn 7m tons of freshly felled timber in Yorkshire every year); stop driving an IC car; stop flying; stop eating meat; stop extracting gas and oil; stop making steel. The list seems to grow every day.

Were you also opposed to the Clean Air Act? Do you think that we should have encouraged smoking on the basis that jobs in Bristol relied upon it?

 

[The Ham]

Just chucking something in here, I went to see Simon Reeve's book tour on Monday, and he made a point that I suspect Bantamzen would agree with (though I don't have any proof it's correct) - which was something along the lines that for an average person "greening" their pension investments would likely result in lower carbon emissions than giving up flying. Now obviously one can do both, and he is a prolific travellers so would be looking to justify it, but if true it does play into @Bantamzen's hand a little.

It's an area where we should do more, and it's also an area where many don't understand how they can make a change (or even that it's possible to do so).

However, over time it's likely to become more normal and so it's likely that it's going to see carbon emissions reduce (some will even get greener anyway as it becomes harder to invest in carbon intensive activities and/or the returns aren't as good).

I don't think there's too much "critical thinking" among the climate change lobby. So far as I can see, it consists almost entirely of persuading people (or sometimes demanding) that they stop doing things: stop burning fossil fuels for energy (though quite OK to burn 7m tons of freshly felled timber in Yorkshire every year); stop driving an IC car; stop flying; stop eating meat; stop extracting gas and oil; stop making steel. The list seems to grow every day.

The same "critical thinking" is being shown with climate change as was shown during the pandemic. There was a focus on one thing - to stop the virus spreading. So focussed was this that scarcely any other consideration was made. No study on the effect of the economy, other health problems, people's mental wellbeing, children's education - nothing. And we all know how that turned out.

Instead of a "stop...stop...stop" mentality, innovations need to developed which allow most of the activities currently undertaken to continue. It is simply unacceptable to say (as some on here have suggested) that civil aviation must be curtailed to such a degree that large sections of the economies of many nations will be thrown to the wolves in order to achieve a largely unachievable target by an arbitrary date. Other things do matter. There is no point in burning your house down to rid yourself of a wasps' nest.

Aviation is the classic "low hanging fruit". It's seen as frivolous, unnecessary and (seemingly to some) easily sacrificed with minimal side effects. It isn't and like all other things related to the climate change industry, it needs careful consideration.


The evidence is all around you. All the progression and improvements to human lives have virtually always been due to some sort of innovation. Problems which humans have encountered have been countered by innovation. Few have been approached with the sort of mania that seems abundant in the climate change debate. Few have been met with the downright dismissal of contrary views. Apart, that is, from the problem encountered in the early months of 2020.

There's three options:
- allow unlimited air travel (which when paired with other industries significantly reducing their emissions would lead to aviation being noticeable more than 2% of global emissions)
- ban all air travel (with the issues that causes)
- something between the two (which is where 99.9% of people actually sit)

Some limitations on air travel (even back to 2005 level of use would see a noticeable reduction in carbon) is what a lot of people would like.

Whilst many personally haven't flown for some time and whilst they may encourage others to do likewise - they rarely actually want every single flight to be banned.

What probably does need some action is that who fly a lot (more than 12 return flights a year), which would actually see a noticeable reduction in carbon emissions without impacting the vast majority of people.

 

[Enthusiast]

Were you also opposed to the Clean Air Act? Do you think that we should have encouraged smoking on the basis that jobs in Bristol relied upon it?

Not quite the same, I fancy.

I don't know how much damage the Clean Air Act imposed on the economy. Not much, I would imagine. Coal merchants switched to selling smokeless fuel (developed by innovation) so I doubt they suffered too much. Factories and industrial plants had to modify their processes so as to produce cleaner emissions (again facilitated by innovation). But they were not ordered to close down.

There's a huge difference between discouraging individuals from smoking and advocating (as some have in this thread) the wholesale abandonment of large parts of a global industry which supports up to 100 million jobs and about 4% of the world's GDP. It's just seen as an "easy win" with little or no thought for the consequences.

 

[Bald Rick]

something between the two (which is where 99.9% of people actually sit)

my opinion only, but I will eat my sombrero if 999 people out of 1000 think that there should be any limitations on air travel.

 

[Krokodil]

There's a huge difference between discouraging individuals from smoking and advocating (as some have in this thread) the wholesale abandonment of large parts of a global industry which supports up to 100 million jobs and about 4% of the world's GDP. It's just seen as an "easy win" with little or no thought for the consequences.

Who's proposing "wholesale abandonment of large parts"?

 

[Bantamzen]

And your source for that is?

Brown, preferably HP, Chop or even Aldi's own brand...

Who's proposing "wholesale abandonment of large parts"?

Anyone proposing shutting down large parts of aviation, for reasons that should now be obvious to anyone who has been reading this thread.

 

[Enthusiast]

Who's proposing "wholesale abandonment of large parts"?

I haven't looked too far back but:

Reducing travel damages the economy, quality of life and technological advancement, and we will be back to a century ago when aviation was still a novelty.

Yes. Unfortunately I think that's the direction we need to be heading in (or even back to before aeroplanes were invented). Alternative fuels (even hydrogen) do nothing to solve the problem of greenhouse gas emissions at-altitude.

I'm pretty sure there's more further back, but that will serve as an indication of some of the views that abound.

Like I said, you cannot "uninvent" the aeroplane but that view seems to suggest not only that it's possible, but desirable, and it's ludicrous. Views like this need to be dismissed out of hand because they're not going to happen. But more than that such views are doing no favours to those wishing to see climate change addressed because more rational people will simply dismiss them as the musings of raving lunatics.

 

[YorkRailFan]

I personally see SAF (Sustainable Aviation Fuel) making up the driving force of lowering emissions in aviation for the foreseeable future, coupled with newer, more efficient engines. Electric planes can work for short flights (around 200NM for the foreseeable future, before expanding to 500NM). Hydrogen is a long term goal to lower emissions, the issue is supply and production in the long term and engines in the near term. Will the industry meet its targets in 2050? No, that is incredibly optimistic, 2075 is more realistic but doesn't look as good for the industry.