Isn’t shipping responsible for much more co2 emissions than air travel? Like 17% vs <2% Making ships less dirty + simplifying supply chains would prob make much more difference
-
-
Replying to @humanleon
Not on a per-pound-per-mile basis, plus air travel has higher impact emissions because stratosphere altitude emissions cause about 4x more impact for same amount of CO2.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @vgr @humanleon
And it’s not either-or. Containing climate change will require both (improving oceanic cargo shipping and human air travel)
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @vgr
Not to say it won’t become a political hot topic - but like plastic straws, or fox hunting in the UK, it’s a symbol and a proxy for a whole bunch of other things
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @humanleon
I knew you’d make plastic straw comparison
The analogy is off. Plastic straw bs is based on misinformation around a rounding-error part of a problem (0.5% of oceanic plastic waste)
Air travel is like 10% under proper accounting, and the thinking around it is mostly correct.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @vgr
10%? I heard <2%. I’ll try to find my sources - please show me yours
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @humanleon
2% is the airlines figure for base emissions. It gets to 10% once you factor in altitude multiplier effect of about 4x-5x I believe. Stratosphere emissions have much stronger radiative forcing effects.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vgr
2 only gets to 10 if only airline emissions are subject to this multiplier (and you do nothing to the denominator - but it’s close...) - id love to see the source for this.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @humanleon
Like all climate change info, buried in a squabble of papers
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vgr @humanleon
Wikipedia has a 2-4 range on multiplier https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviation#Total_climate_effects …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
But yeah, 10% is sort of my working estimate of a worst-case bound for quick and dirty thinking. Probably too pessimistic. I’d say 5% would be the optimistic bound which is still a nice wedge worth working on. Most things people talk about are like dumb 0.5% wedges.
-
-
Replying to @vgr @humanleon
As a merchant sailor: Shipping is legislated in an ad-hoc manner because of the hyper complex legal structure around it. But there is NO way to beat it for efficiency. We need better engines/fuels Bouyancy is free, build a boat, it floats. Lift (airplanes) requires energy.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Further: Air travel is efficient coz you can (e.g.) leave New Delhi on Saturday and attend a meeting in San Francisco on Monday. Better connectivity on ships and acceptance of teleconferencing while travelling will negate this. BTW sail assisted ships are in research RN
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.