
One meteorologist explains why he won’t fly again - jseliger
http://www.salon.com/2013/09/30/one_meteorologist_explains_why_he_wont_fly_again/
======
jonemo
What some of the other comments here seem to miss is that he isn't suggesting
to replace air travel with other modes of transport. He suggests cutting back
on unnecessary long distance travel. And if you have ever seen scientists'
travel schedules, you might be inclined to agree. I find it bizarre that those
people who should be the first to understand climate change are among the most
active producers of CO2.

As a grad student I once flew half way around the world (18 hours + 2 hours
flight time) to present a paper to a room of 10 people who had traveled
similar distances to get there. Because the paper was more or less mistakenly
assigned to a "robots for hazardous environments" session, exactly none of the
people in the audience cared. And because I was last to present in a session
of 6 presentations and the 5th presenter didn't show up, I started mine ahead
of schedule. A few acquaintances who wanted to stop by just to see me present
came in just after I finished. Nobody gained anything from this 15 minute
presentation.

If I had skipped the trip, my paper would not have been included in the
conference proceedings. Publishing papers at conferences is one thing you have
to do to be considered a successful scientist and this was only my second
conference paper. The story is only one anecdote, but the entire system of
science is built around encouraging people to travel long distances
frequently. It's stupid.

~~~
steven777400
Similar story. When I was grad student, I was flown half way around the world
(Oregon -> Italy) to present someone else's paper (!) because they were
feeling ill. I had only the most rudimentary knowledge of the contents, since
it was such a last minute affair. So, as in your experience, the presentation
was hardly worthwhile at all, much less the expense (environmental or
financial) of sending me, in aggregate, all the way around the world.

------
ars
He won't fly? Or he won't travel?

Big, big difference. Because flying is one of the MOST efficient ways to
travel. FAR more efficient than even taking a bus.

> If more would cut down on just one long-distance flight per year, he
> maintains, that would also have a major impact.

That's terrible advice because people will drive instead. And adding "long-
distance" makes the advice worse since long-distance flights are more
efficient than short ones (most of the work is getting in the air, not staying
there).

The ONLY was to cut down CO2 emissions is nuclear power plants. Nothing else
is practical. If you care about CO2, and you have the opportunity, lobby to
have a nuclear plant installed near you[r city].

~~~
patmcguire
I don't think you're right about efficiency. Trains and boats are definitely
more fuel efficient than flying, and cars are close. The figure for planes is
about 90 passenger-miles per gallon, for fully loaded (55 people) deisel buses
it's about 330. (All from this lovely article
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transporta...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transportation))

Of course it depends on your stopping and starting.

~~~
ars
See:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transportation#US_Passenger_transportation)

For more realistic figures rather than theoretical maximums.

And I especially found it interesting to note that as typically used, cars are
better than busses.

~~~
wisty
I think buses are better than cars, for inter-city travel. Wikipedia's numbers
are probably more relevant to transit buses (i.e. the ones local governments
run, which are often empty). Greyhound doesn't run uneconomic routes.

~~~
contingencies
Bicycles are really healthy, cost little to acquire, are easy to repair, last
for ages, and work reasonably well in most climates.

 _the bicycle is one of the most efficient forms of transport... half the
energy per unit distance of walking ... converts to about [there are 2 claims
in wikipedia, 732 and 879 mpg]_

I strongly suggest any hackers (aging and pot-bellied or otherwise) give long
distance cycling a go: it's truly pleasurable and great for your brain! I
spend much of my 20s doing this in foreign countries.

~~~
derleth
> work reasonably well in most climates.

If you like to be boiled in the summer and frozen in the winter, not to
mention having to cycle on icy roads with no shoulder and sixteen-wheelers
bearing down on you.

Anyway, if you do cycle, please don't make a habit out of blowing past
pedestrians at full speed, and think twice about riding on the sidewalks.

~~~
contingencies
Perhaps consider moving to a less automobile-obsessed culture and a better
climate.

~~~
derleth
Your snark aside, I don't cycle. I walk. Mainly, I'm concerned with getting
knocked down by a cyclist who thinks that sidewalks are a wonderful place to
go full speed without having to worry about anyone else.

~~~
contingencies
Do you think perhaps they may have a similar concern regarding significantly
larger mass vehicles moving at higher speeds some distance to your side?

~~~
derleth
> Do you think perhaps they may have a similar concern regarding significantly
> larger mass vehicles moving at higher speeds some distance to your side?

So they're justified in acting recklessly around me because others act
recklessly around them? If it's that much of a problem, they should walk.

------
rjshade
There's an interesting response to this, in which the author argues that "for
the sake of the planet, please fly!":

[http://qz.com/131024/its-ok-to-have-a-big-carbon-
footprint-a...](http://qz.com/131024/its-ok-to-have-a-big-carbon-footprint-
and-pay-others-not-to/)

~~~
scotty79
> [http://qz.com/131024/its-ok-to-have-a-big-carbon-
> footprint-a...](http://qz.com/131024/its-ok-to-have-a-big-carbon-footprint-
> and-pay-others-not-to/)

It's bit like saying "it's ok to each caviar at charity dinner". It may be
right economically but it's very morally shady if costs of caviar and benefits
it brings to fundraiser aren't carefully, unambiguously calculated.

------
ggreer
This guy is reducing his quality of life to save the environment (or so he
believes). That's more than most of us are willing to do, and that's why his
sacrifice is futile. He's the exception that proves the rule. I don't think
_any_ civilization has ever voluntarily reduced its resource consumption.
Adapting to climate change or reversing it with geoengineering is probably
easier than changing human nature.

~~~
gaius
You can fly and drive all the miles you please knowing that you will never
impact the planet as much as someone who has 2 or God forbid more kids.
Because there is one and only one thing that will save the planet, and that's
fewer us.

~~~
angersock
How haughty to assume that the onus is on us to "save" the planet. How absurd
to also assume that the only way we could accomplish this is by some quota of
human beings.

~~~
gaius
Oh the planet will do fine without us, but using the commonly accepted meaning
of the phrase to mean preserving a familiar ecosystem, then yes, the only was
todo that is to consume less. If we abandon modern tech that will happen
anyway since we rely on industrial farming.

So we can reduce our load on the ecosystem in a managed way likeChina did, or
we can have it forced upon us, but it is going to happen.

------
kylemaxwell
Not at all what I expected. But this feels like the very definition of a power
law problem: the few people out of the human population who fly regularly have
so much more impact than the rest combined.

------
MarcusBrutus
This is South Park material. I would love to see an episode with ManBearPig,
Al Gore and the crying meteorologist.

~~~
archgoon
And this is the type of poisonous, vacuous comment that makes Hacker News a
worse place.

If you want to make an argument that Climate Change is not an issue: Make it.
If you want to say that this person's reaction is irrational, make that
argument. Don't be snide and claim "This person's emotional response is
obviously stupid, and he deserves to be mocked without justification".

As it stands, we have no idea why you feel that this is stupid (though your
reasons are probably crap). You're simply being offensive, and not adding
anything to the discussion. People who disagree with you are disadvantaged,
because you've made no actual points; and so you can dodge any criticisms with
"Where did I say that?". Which of course, is the main point, you haven't said
anything. You're just being an ass.

~~~
MarcusBrutus
Man-made climate warning is most likely a hoax that fuels a multi-billion-
dollar industry and is used, among other things, to erect protectionist
barriers against Chinese and Indian cars. So there are extremely powerful
vested political and economic interests to ensure that there's no possibility
of an honest debate, even to the point of falsifying data I would suspect
(never mind the indoctrination of young children across most of the western
world).

Even if that weren't the case it would still be pointless to worry about it as
trying to change people's behavior outside the marketplace can only be done
with totalitarian methods, which is exactly what environmentalists propose.
Not to mention, since this is Hacker News after all, that I would love to see
CO2 concentrations go up 50 times to reach those recorded during dinosaurs'
time (sorry, too lazy to check exact era), as a much denser atmosphere would
allow almost car-sized airships to be built, or even human flight with wings
and how cool would that be.

Environmentalism is the new communism and Gaia-worshiping is a religion with
Al Gore as its main tele-evangelist. The guy has even set up his own company
selling carbon credits. I am certainly not going to write a lengthy exposition
identifying the errors in Benn Hinn's theological doctrine. Ridicule saves
time.

~~~
homeomorphic
> Man-made climate warning is most likely a hoax that fuels a multi-billion-
> dollar industry and is used, among other things, to erect protectionist
> barriers against Chinese and Indian cars. So there are extremely powerful
> vested political and economic interests to ensure that there's no
> possibility of an honest debate, even to the point of falsifying data I
> would suspect (never mind the indoctrination of young children across most
> of the western world).

What you present here is, as far as I can tell, an argument that there are
(well-monied) interests that stand to gain from having people believe in AGW.
That is a valid point to make, but it does nothing to prove the conspiracy
that you sketch. Do you have any proof?

You go on (sorry, it's cumbersome to quote on my phone) to suggest that the
fact that there are people who take a religious view towards environmentalism
matters for the debate. I agree to a certain extent that this is a problem,
but the solution is simple: don't listen to the enviro-religious people.
Listen instead to the science.

~~~
MarcusBrutus
Even assuming that man-made global warming is true and that high
concentrations of CO2 is a bad thing, what does science tell me that's really
actionable? Coordination is impossible in prisoner's dilemma type games. No
solution, no problem. The only way to "solve" the "problem" is with world-wide
totalitarian measures which would produce untold misery as a side effect. I 'd
much rather have the sea level go up 2 meters. The crying meteorologist is to
me on a par with the British young woman who had an abortion "for the
environment". To recap: powerful interests, alarming indications of
intellectual fraud (e.g. accusations of data massaging, gradually speaking
more of "climate change" than "global warming"), nothing to do that's
compatible with me pursuing my interest, yes selfish interest - is there
another kind? -, in a market economy. Case closed for me.

------
ars
He says he recycles.

What does he recycle? Because only metal is worth recycling, everything else
is not worth the extra pollution and water.

~~~
alextingle
Combustible garbage can be usefully turned into electrical energy.

~~~
VLM
The city I grew up in, did just that with all of its garbage in the 60s/70s
and had to shut down in the 80s because it was a net loss once the full cost
of exhaust scrubbers, disposal of whatever they scrub out, etc, was taken into
account.

They were having profitability issues as it was once labor costs, boiler
certification and related costs, maintenance, and ash disposal were factored
in, so it didn't take much environmental cleanliness regulation cost to wipe
out any profit from the incinerator.

Or rephrased, you can burn trash to make X units of electricity, it'll just
n*X units of electricity to operate the plant, pay the workers, clean the
fumes from the smokestack, maintain the boilers, operate the facility... Some
factors are O(1), some O(n), some probably O(polynomial) if not exponential so
simply making a bigger facility doesn't help (and a bigger facility means
burning more diesel to haul the trash, no free lunch...)

~~~
Vivtek
You realize that was fifty years ago, right? This is like saying computers are
impractical because their vacuum tubes require too much power - here in the
21st century, Sweden has actually run out of combustible garbage because it's
working for them. They now have to import garbage as a fuel for power
generation.

~~~
ars
It works for Sweden because the population does the work for them.

They have like 10 different bins for garbage
[http://blog.liu.se/rhiannonbristowstagg/category/life-in-
swe...](http://blog.liu.se/rhiannonbristowstagg/category/life-in-
sweden/page/3/)

So the power plant hardly needs to do any sorting - all the combustibles are
already separated (which means much less ash). Of course no one counts the
work of the population when factoring costs.

~~~
alextingle
In fact, machines sort garbage better than humans. In the UK, we're moving
away from having people do lots of sorting, towards having everything
"recyclable" going into one giant bin. The factory then sorts that into
metals, burnables, glass & whatever... it's cheaper, easier and better for
everyone.

~~~
VLM
Do the machines shred? That would be an interesting advantage to machine
sorting, shove an old car thru the shredder, and the glass chips go this way,
the metal chunks go that way, and the plastic pieces go this way.

Maybe we don't often throw cars into the residential trash, but I could see
this working with kids toys, or plastic bottles with metal caps.

~~~
alextingle
Here's a good video of a modern plant:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJzqP5pnOF0](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJzqP5pnOF0)

------
Zigurd
Climate change is alarming enough, and has been for long enough that I don't
get responses such as these. Wikipedia says a 747 rates 91 passenger-miles per
US gallon. We need big changes to the energy supply system that will be
incredibly difficult to attain. We don't need irrational responses. The hard
problem is to de-couple energy from coal and oil from wealth. Without
accomplishing that, air travel won't matter one way or the other.

~~~
Ma8ee
Air travel do matter and there is nothing irrational in doing our best to
decrease it. Just because Americans first compare it with cars that is the
most inefficient way to travel doesn't mean that air travel is efficient
compared to busses, trains or boats. (Also, 91 passenger miles per gallon is
slightly less than me and my wife gets when travelling in our Prius together.)

The point is that we have to learn to live with travelling much less. Both me
and my wife are scientists, and we have become used to 2-4 intercontinental
trips (back and forth) per person and year for conferences and collaborations.
That contributes much more to our total carbon footprint than everything else
we do summed together. It just have to stop.

~~~
Zigurd
OK, but that may say more about the limits of carbon reduction in
discretionary actions by individual consumers than about air travel as a
problem. At some point you have to start transforming the supply balance at a
significantly faster pace than demand growth, or you can't make a dent in the
absolute components of coal and oil in the energy supply, nor will carbon-
conscious consumers like you be able to achieve further savings.

~~~
Ma8ee
We must do both. Of course we need to change how our energy is produced, but
we must also decrease the amount of energy we consume at the same time.
Otherwise we have no chance to succeed.

And of course I am know very well that what I and my wife do is just a piss in
the sea. The point is that it is much easier to argue that you should do your
part to decrease the amount of greenhouse gases you are responsible for, and
even support legislations that forces you to, if we already have done our part
and a little more. It would be much easier for the US to ask China to do
something about their greenhouse gases if the US per capita emission wasn't
something like 4 times as high as China's.

------
tehwebguy
Anyone else get auto redirected from Salon to Candy Crush Saga in the app
store (on iphone)?

------
dinkumthinkum
I don't want this to sound the wrong way. I certainly accept human caused
climate change and all that. However, I think this is an example of how some
people are just too dramatic for their own good and really should avoid quick
fire social media tools.

~~~
smoyer
I just flew throug SFO last week and what made me sad was the skid marks in
the grass reminding me of the recent crash.

~~~
dinkumthinkum
Right, and that's pretty normal.

------
Kequc
According to what I assume is a 100% scientific pie chart the leading cause of
global warming is fire. So I don't know why this guy is concerning himself
with air travel.

[http://i.imgur.com/AvIHovx.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/AvIHovx.jpg)

~~~
homeomorphic
What do you feel that this adds to the discussion? Seriously - if you want to
express yourself, please do so in a way that adds to the conversation.

(I realize that this very comment of mine also does not add anything.)

------
moocowduckquack
We need to throw money at this kind of stuff - [http://www.gizmag.com/eads-
voltair-electric-airliner/18988/](http://www.gizmag.com/eads-voltair-electric-
airliner/18988/)

