> "A jumbo jet (Boeing 747-400) flying from London to New York burns approximately 70,000 kilograms of fuel"[0]
If numbers like this were regularly given to laypeople, the climate change discussion situation would be much better. That number for a single flight is ENORMOUS!
It's 2-3 tons carbon emitted per person, per flight. One flight like that would be approx. a quarter of the average carbon usually emitted per person. Shorter flights are much less efficient as a large chunk of fuel is used to simply take off.
Perhaps it's better to restrict oneself to flying OR driving that kind of distance. And it adds up - if you drive: do you ever look at your total mileage, then calculate your carbon emissions?
You are off by a few orders of magnitude. Total fuel load is 70,000kg and a 747-400 carries 416 passengers in a typical 3-class configuration[0]. That comes to only 168kg/passenger.
"For many people reading this, air travel is their most serious environmental sin. One round-trip flight from New York to Europe or to San Francisco creates a warming effect equivalent to 2 or 3 tons of carbon dioxide per person. The average American generates about 19 tons of carbon dioxide a year; the average European, 10."
Seems like there's some tricky math going on, notice: "equivalent" in the above quote:
This calculates 180 kg CO2/hour per passenger. So 8 hours or so between NYC and Paris? 1,440 kg. 1.6 tons. Not quite a few orders of magnitude.
Once through all the calculations, the above then states,
"The CO2 emissions are therefore rounded up and the Carbon Independent calculator takes a values of 250 kg i.e. ¼ tonne CO2 equivalent per hour flying."
No idea what they mean by "Equivalent" either, I was just doing the math with the figures quotes up-thread.
Look at the correction at the bottom of the NYT piece:
> "A news analysis article last Sunday about the impact of air travel on global warming referred imprecisely to the environmental impact of one round-trip flight from New York to Europe or to San Francisco. It has a warming effect equivalent to 2 or 3 tons of carbon dioxide per person, but does not generate that much carbon dioxide per person. (The estimate also includes warming from other greenhouses gases.)"
So actual carbon output per person was correctly calculated, but there is some "carbon equivalent" multiplier slapped on other gasses that brings their totals up from 170kg/px to 2-3T/px.
No, but it's not inconceivable to consider electric cars and biofuel powered jets. It's certainly possible to go mostly carbon neutral on our major transportation systems, but it's a lot of work.
If numbers like this were regularly given to laypeople, the climate change discussion situation would be much better. That number for a single flight is ENORMOUS!