If you take just two cross country and two overseas trips a year . . .
not a big number for today’s more mobile young adults . . . you’re
consuming as much carbon as you would by driving a huge gas-guzzling
SUV 12,000 miles a year.
Here is the link.
Jane Galt’s fact of the day
Previous post: Another reason to give your kid a weird name
Next post: Round-up
I don’t really need a factoid to tell me that, you can tell just by the cost that these are not environmentally friendly activities.
Yes?
Is this fact of the day — assuming it is even true as she offers no source — supposed to suggest that we abolish air travel? What a preposterous idea. Or is she suggesting that we stop driving cars? That’s also absurd.
Ah…I know…maybe she is suggesting that there is no problem with global climate change. How clever.
“Is this fact of the day — assuming it is even true as she offers no source — supposed to suggest that we abolish air travel?”
Of course it’s true – a simple back of the envelope calculation based on aircraft fuel capacity and range will reveal that the per passenger mpg of a plane is not much better than a single person car.
The clear implication – regardless of what her intent in posting was – is that aviation should not be exempted from any sort of carbon tax or tradable permits scheme that may be implemented to internalize the costs of global warming. Otherwise aviation is just getting yet another free hidden subsidy (once again, as it so often does).
I thought the name of this blog was marginal revolution. The computation being cited takes the carbon cost of the flights and spreads them across the passengers. But, if I take these flights, my marginal effect on carbon consumption is much smaller
Whether to look at average cost or marginal cost is a fair consideration, but one should remember that if one considers a large enough group of people, average cost is the most relevant measure.
Of course, it may even be true if we consider only one individual. Airlines have a propensity to unnecessarily cancel flights because of a lack of asses in the seats, and a firm had to draw a line somewhere.
“Yes, but it puts Al Gore into perspective [...]”
I’m really surprised that in this day and age everyone doesn’t know about “carbon offsets” and who buys them. FWIW, Al buys them.
They are, actually, very cheap. It’s pretty easy to buy an SUV and offset it, rather than a Prius.
You should consider the average carbon cost [of air travel], not the marginal cost, because if a lot of people sustainedly change their behavior the airlines will fly fewer or smaller planes.
-dk
“Ah…I know…maybe she is suggesting that there is no problem with global climate change. How clever.”
I interpreted it as another reason why gas/carbon taxes are better than mandating fuel-economy standards.I live in the mountains and somedays it does more harm than good to exercise outside. What has the world come too? Is there anything we can do?
Comments on this entry are closed.