4% of global warming to date. Flying will still be possible (and not uncommon) in a net zero world. Maybe americans will have to take the train to see their relatives, but they could just DACCS if they love TSA controls so much.
Like I said, it counts almost double. Aviation makes up 4% of the impact when 90% of the global population isn’t even flying in a year. Traveler numbers are tiny compared to other modes yet it causes a 4% chunk.
Aviation is outright terrible in its impact compared to rail, on corridors where both are an option. Of course, for many travels, only aviation is in option. That is a reality but doesn’t make aviation any better.
Aviation is about 2.5% of global emissions.
In the long run then yes, we need carbon neutral fuels, but it should be possible for people to fly a little and not destroy the planet.
The reason why aviation emissions are so bad is not so much the amount but where exactly they are emitted.
https://ourworldindata.org/global-aviation-emissions
4% of global warming to date. Flying will still be possible (and not uncommon) in a net zero world. Maybe americans will have to take the train to see their relatives, but they could just DACCS if they love TSA controls so much.
Like I said, it counts almost double. Aviation makes up 4% of the impact when 90% of the global population isn’t even flying in a year. Traveler numbers are tiny compared to other modes yet it causes a 4% chunk.
Aviation is outright terrible in its impact compared to rail, on corridors where both are an option. Of course, for many travels, only aviation is in option. That is a reality but doesn’t make aviation any better.
Agreed on all points.
Which gives me huge misgivings about the current space push.