Taking one flight emits more CO2 than poorer people emit in a year.

[watervole]

 Aviation starkly demonstrates the difference between rich and poor. Taking a long-haul flight generates more carbon emissions than the average person in dozens of countries produces in a whole year.

Even a short-haul flight - say London to Edinburgh - will emit more CO2 than the average person in Uganda or Somalia does in a year.

But, it's the poor who will suffer the most from the resulting environmental damage.

Comments

[igenlode]

And yet global mobility among the not-particularly-rich has generated far more flights than would otherwise exist.

In the old days, when you emigrated across the world, it was a lifetime decision (unless you changed your mind and made the long journey back). I now know a whole set of people who have travelled from far continents to work, and who take as many long-haul flights back to visit friends and family as they can afford; maybe one or two a year, instead of a voyage 'home' every ten years if they're lucky.

People pop over to New Zealand or Iceland to see grandchildren from marriages between young globe-trotters. It's taken for granted that distance is no separation, and no parting is permanent. The world is a smaller place, and it's dependent on aviation.

[watervole]

I guess it depends on how you define 'rich'.

You're right in that many people that we think of as not particularly rich do a lot of flying.

But from the point of view of the third world, you and I are rich. (though the very rich do a lot more flying per person, there's a lot of us people in the middle, so we add up in terms of numbers)

I know many people with families overseas, and it's very hard to criticise someone for travelling to Australia to see a much-loved grandchild.

And yet... That same grandchild's future is more precarious than most people are aware.

Carbon emissions are rising exponentially - if we can't stop that...

I did the math on my own emissions. I live a fairly low-carbon lifestyle and I just fit inside the UK governments target emissions for 2020. If I take a single return flight to the USA, I bust that target.

Long-term, we may have electric aircraft and enough solar power and high quality batteries to make them practical, but until then, I can't see how we can keep global temperature increases within the 1.5 degree safe zone without cutting emissions from farming AND heating AND transport.

We have to make big cuts in all three.

[igenlode]

Even the 'safe' 1.5 degrees is likely to be exceedingly unpleasant...
I don't think we can keep down global temperature increases without massively reducing the level of human mobility that our culture has come to take for granted, I'm afraid.

If people want to travel to the other end of the world (or the other side of the continent) they are going to have to accept that this is a major commitment that takes time, costs money, and can't be done lightly. (One can travel without aeroplanes; the mediaeval rich were astonishingly mobile, considering.)

We simply can't keep batting people and things around the globe as if there were no cost or consequences involved; even shipping things by cargo vessel creates quite a lot of pollution (very heavy fuel oil). Importing plastic gimmickery from China is ridiculously wasteful, particularly since most of it really is short-lived rubbish destined for landfill...

[watervole]

Seeing the weather right now - too hot to play outside with Oswin - I am scared of a 1.5 world and terrified by the prospect of 4 degrees, which is where we will arrive if we don't make massive changes very fast indeed.

I gave up flying 15 years ago, and I expect to keep that pledge for the rest of my life. I won't do long sea journeys either. As you say, marine diesel is highly polluting (and untaxed...)

I consider virtually every action I take in terms of the planet.

eg. The sword dance team wanted to buy badges for us to sell. I said no - more plastic tat to end up in landfill. And our musician instantly backed me.

I gather Greta THunburg has caused a new word in Swedish 'flygskam' - 'flight shaming' https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/flygskam-anti-flying-flight-shaming-sweden-greta-thornberg-environment-air-travel-train-brag-a8945196.html

[igenlode]

I've just spent a couple of hours attempting to improvise a set of slatted blinds for a large uncurtained south-facing window, using cardboard boxes, brown tape, and paper glue. They're clearly not going to last long. ironically enough due to the amount of draughts that do blow through; tying them on with string helps, but the places where the slats have been cut are inherently weak.

It's over eighty degrees in the one room that feels cool, and I can't imagine what temperatures the unshaded plants are undergoing; the buds have already been scorched off the climbing rose due to reflected heat from the wall.

This is not funny. (I never even wanted to go on holiday to countries that get this hot, let alone have it come home to me and have to live and work through it.)

[watervole]

Charity shops often have curtains for sale. Buy a pair, any colour, any size. Has to be better than what you're trying now.

[igenlode]

No curtain rail, and nowhere to put one.
(The French windows open inwards and extend up to the ceiling.)

I tried hanging sheets between the open doors during the heatwave earlier in the year, but it didn't work. The cardboard slats are reasonably effective as a substitute for plantation shutters, but obviously they have an inherently limited lifespan!

[watervole]

What you need is a portiere rod. They fasten to the wall beside a window/door and open when the door does. See https://www.cameronfuller.co.uk/portiererods.html to get an idea what I mean.

[igenlode]

Looks good, though I'm not feeling rich at the moment...

[vera_j]

But, it's the poor who will suffer the most from the resulting environmental damage.

YES! EVERYTHING you say it true! And still, there is no unity against the emits...well, it there is that hystery against diesel engines but hey! the specialist point out that with the latest engines, the emits are even less detectable that electric cars and their batteries...

Again, I have to offer that old joke about a man falling down from the top of a skyscraper...still all right, still all right. However the fall is inevitable, isn´t it?

[watervole]

I think there's a case for diesel for some farm vehicles, but if anyone has told you that the latest diesel has lower emissions than electric cars, then I'm skeptical.

There's certainly a big carbon cost to making new batteries, so an electric car is far more expensive to make then a diesel in terms of CO2.

However, the more years the car is driven, the more the balance shifts in favour of electric.

Even with all fossil fuels generating the electricity, the two are pretty close in terms of CO2 usage from driving, and as soon as you get even part of the electricity from renewables, the electric car wins hands down. They're more efficient.

When it comes to air pollution, electric cars win hands down - much of the battle against diesel is because of high air pollution in city centres - it's killing people...

[igenlode]

Just putting electric engines in motor-cars doesn't really solve the other problems generated by hyper-mobility, though (hollowed-out cities, barren housing estates, depopulated countryside, noise and particle pollution from tyres, acres wasted on providing parking space, road deaths, congestion, just-in-time supply chains and out-of-town warehousing). It's more acceptable and therefore more achievable than telling people 'well, you really need to give up using cars' -- which involves giving up doing things that are dependent on using cars, down to the level of a child not being able to attend ballet lessons if the only teacher is six miles away and there is no public transport -- but the entire automobile-dependent lifestyle isn't really sustainable.

(And again, it's easy for me to preach; I grew up in a family without a car, I've never had a car, and I've never got into habits that depend on having one, because if you didn't have one you simply couldn't, that was all...)

[watervole]

There's a whole chain of things - you're spot on about particle pollution from cars. Electric cars won't fix that, though they will help with brake linings.

I can't imagine driving a kid six miles to a ballet lesson - though I know there are those that do. Probably those unwilling to spend the time doing something with the kid themselves...

What I see as one of the biggest potential dangers of electric cars is, ironically, their cheap running costs. Given cheaper costs, people tend to drive further, and most of the benefit is lost.

We need less moving around, period, but as you say, it's a very hard message to sell. Just trying to stop people flying is hard enough. The online pledge to not fly in 2020 currently has a mere 2,300 signatures (and five of those are me and people I persuaded to sign it). They really need around 100,000 signatures to make an impact - so if you can get any more - https://www.flightfree.co.uk/pledge?fbclid=IwAR3byBEUZtDI_378DhaCJzy4mjrXtKEIq2O9aLj5-V-uygqYRy1mBXQpF64

I wish my village had an evening bus service. Morris dancing is my real weakness when it comes to carbon footprints. It's only a few miles into Poole, but without an evening bus service, it has to be a car - though at least we have three of us sharing the car.

My sword dance team practice within walking distance.