Just 1% of people are responsible for half of all toxic emissions from flying.

  • Zoolander@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Everyone in these comments so far is misrepresenting the information here and arguing off of an incorrect assumption.

    This is NOT saying that the 1% wealthiest people are responsible for half of these emissions. This is saying that 1% of travellers are responsible for half these emissions because those travelers travel so frequently. It has nothing to do with their wealth or using private jets. It’s about how much they’re flying.

    Source: From the study linked in the petition: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378020307779

    “1% of world population emits 50% of CO2 from commercial aviation.” Not private jets. Commercial aviation.

    “Data also supports that a minor share of air travelers is responsible for a large share of warming: The percentile of the most frequent fliers – at most 1% of the world population - likely accounts for more than half of the total emissions from passenger air travel.”

    • Kecessa
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Everyone in these comments doesn’t understand”

      You’ve been arguing against me that commercial flights aren’t an issue because I’ve pointed out the same fucking thing 7h before you!

      • Zoolander@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I never said that. I said that they’re not as big of an issue as cars. You’re lying. If you’re going to focus your efforts, as I’ve stated now multiple times, it would be more impactful to tell people to drive less, not more. Airline travel is more efficient than driving.

          • Zoolander@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well then, I’m sorry that you have to live life as an idiot. That must be tough.

            ——

            “A new report from the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute shows that flying has become 74% more efficient per passenger since 1970 while driving gained only 17% efficiency per passenger. In fact, the average plane trip has been more fuel efficient than the average car trip since as far back as 2000, according to their calculations.”

            http://websites.umich.edu/~umtriswt/PDF/UMTRI-2014-2_Abstract_English.pdf

            “The main findings are that to make driving less energy intensive than flying, the fuel economy of the entire fleet of light-duty vehicles would have to improve from the current 21.5 mpg to at least 33.8 mpg, or vehicle load would have to increase from the current 1.38 persons to at least 2.3 persons.”

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

        • Kecessa
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          When used for passengers and for the same purpose, no they’re not. They only are if they’re used for the same distance and the car has one passenger and the plane is full, but I’m sure even you realise how disingenuous that comparison is.

          • Zoolander@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Again, not true. The statements are based on current averages of 80% occupancy in a plane and 1.3 passengers per trip. That means that, on average, most planes are close to full occupancy while most car rides are 1 passenger rides. It’s not disingenuous at all.

            If you’re only going to focus on the small percent of car rides with 3+ people, then you’re already moving the goalposts from the initial claims.

            • Kecessa
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I’m focusing on travels for the same fucking purpose because my point from the beginning has been that we would be better off if people used their car to go on vacation instead because they would use less gas because they wouldn’t go as far AND because cars are more efficient when there’s more than one passenger in them, you keep using numbers that don’t make sense because you compare average occupancy for long distance travel by plane to occupancy for mixed distance travel by car.

              No fucking shit most of the times car travel there’s only one person inside, most of the times they don’t travel long distances for vacations! When they do their occupancy tends to be higher because the majority of people don’t go on long distance vacation alone!

                • Kecessa
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Banning it for non essential needs isn’t when we’re facing a climate crisis that will displace millions (if not billions in the long run).

                  • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    It is when it’s not a realistic solution and there are other ways of achieving better outcomes with a greater return on investment of time and resources.

              • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Yes, as I said, you’re moving the goal posts! The initial point that was being discussed was whether or not planes have higher emissions that cars because planes are less efficient than cars and that’s not true. You’re arguing a hypothetical that puts the car in an ideal situation while simultaneously putting planes in the worst situation. You suggested banning the majority of commercial flights when that won’t even make as big of an impact. Why not ban the majority of cars since they have a far greater cumulative impact than planes? If we’re going for completely unreasonable suggestions that only affect single-digit percentages of the problem, why not ban boats too?

                my point from the beginning has been that we would be better off if people used their car to go on vacation instead because they would use less gas because they wouldn’t go as far

                And my point was that this is an unreasonable ask since it would limit where people can travel while not actually moving the needle in any substantive, meaningful way.