Would you stop flying to save the planet?

Sure, if

  1. The earth or our habitat would be lost by flying;
  2. The earth does not experience comparable environmental damage from alternative modes of transport.

But that is exactly the problem.The form of motorized transport causes environmental damage. Only cycling and walking are a lot more favorable. But yes, bikes and shoes should also be made, transported and by use wear them. Thus, only a return to completely natural life is not harmful to the environment. Long live the Stone Age! That’s not an option. Most mopeds pollute more than modern small cars.

To get a little idea of how complicated it is, you could read this piece.

The complex environmental struggle between airplane and train

In short, it is stated that high-speed trains are likely to be close to aircraft in terms of environmental burden per passenger kilometre.But no one knows exactly. Ordinary corail are less environmentally polluting and electric cars are just the question of whether they are really less damaging to the environment if you do everything. Of course, the car itself does not emit any exhaust gases, but the power plant does not run on air. And the manufacture and later processing of such a package of processed batteries does not matter in terms of environmental impact.

However, there is a lot to say to limit flies for vacations.Because flight vacations go on average at least twice as far as train or car vacations. So even if the mieudamage per passenger kilometer would be the same, then a flight holiday on average causes at least twice as much environmental damage.

I have easy talk because I hate flying.Or actually more to the path that lasts in Europe longer than the whole flight. And in the train you can at least stretch the legs.

The solution is not in prohibition.The Dutch government should naturally make life cycle analyses (LCAS) of each type of transport and manufacturers should be obliged to provide realistic and verifiable data on the environmental damage of their products, packaging, storage and Transport, to be delivered.Then the government can classify the tax rates so that consumers and producers benefit from the minimum possible pollution. This leads to innovation by the producer and the conscious use and purchasing behaviour of the consumer.

We, the users, can then make sure that we can save the environment, which is just another word for the happiness of life of our children and grandchildren, as much as possible.

Until it is so far, just use your common sense.As much as possible cycling and walking. Much healthier and cheaper too.

Flying remains for me one of my guilty pleasures, I love to make distant travels.Now it is that takeoff and countries give the most emissions, so long flights are relatively less polluting than short flights per kilometre.

Within Europe I would like to make use of fast train connections.Amsterdam-Paris is by train many times more enjoyable-and cleaner-than by plane.

But whatever I do, flying is only a small part of total CO2 emissions, and even if we halve it, we do not solve the problem.

The big strokes are in the industry and transport, and the energy transition to sustainable energy.And 80% of car rides are less than five kilometres long, which you can often easily cycle-and in Amsterdam always faster than by car. That is low-hanging fruit.

That is not me, but I am working on a new career in which I no longer have to fly.Unfortunately, this does not stop there. I think that we need measures that are beyond my control, right away.

I also think we should stop, scientists to believe.The one is lying even harder for his promotion than the other. What you see, is what you get. It’s all sucks, and we keep it in position because we’re afraid to earn less and soon to be in a bearskin with a baton behind the women (or men).

I can only say what I see, what the effect is I am not well enough for it to be skilled.

  1. It is the shortsightedness of Governments.

Over the last four decades, the number of flights has been 8-fold. After the signing of the climate treaty in Kyoto, the number of flights (scheduled service and charter) has actually exploded. Amsterdam has to release emissions on the ground while above Amsterdam the number of flights increases. Cuckoo.

2.During taxiing, a Boeing consumes 747-300 69 litres of kerosene per minute, while taking off 12 litres per second. During the flight at an average altitude of 10 kilometers, consumption is about 13,750 litres per hour.

3.Daily there are 102,450 flights worldwide. Within the Netherlands, a small 1800 flights (long haul).

4.The airline industry spends 210 billion USD on 273 billion liters of fuel every year (that’s just 0.77 USD per liter) and is responsible for 2% of the world’s emitted carbon dioxide.

(now I suspect that this 2% is a clever feat of arithmetic.)

So my action; I’m going off grid.As previously predicted, in 2022 I have my little hut ready. I’m going to walk through the mountains and do what I want.

I am not talking about myself, and I am very neat to mention some sources:

Kyoto protocol-Wikipedia

Workpiece Technique Boeing 747 (2nd Class Vmbo) | Scholieren.com

Is it still safe?Here are the numbers and stats that everyone who flies should see-newsmonkey

100.000 Flights a Day

Take a look at this graph: Global air travel increased 8 fold in 4 decades -and it’s an accelerating trend.Yes we have a problem

If that would help.But that’s not so. Because besides flies there are many other things that devastate the planet.

I would love to go back to basic myself and grow things myself.Many are outside, few chickens etc. That is my future goal. I look forward to it now!

The whole need to move is to decline.Commuting with cars, trains and buses still emit more CO2. Less work means less frequent travel, closer to your work living means you can cycle. A controlled contraction, with less work, less earning and less consuming and especially in time less people would help. And if you make a plane trip that you have saved a lot of time, it can be fine.

The massive travel at short distance (home-work-groceries) and mass tourism (cheap tickets) is very damaging.

If the train connections are about like the Thalys & Eurostar but than 20 + percent faster, I would certainly not fly within Europe if it could be by train and electric taxi/Bus

For the rest, No.

  • If the big industry can drastically reduce its emissions
  • When we do not have a worldwide dependence on oil/coal

Then that is more so on the dike as far as saving the planet is concerned.Not even to mention the social and financial changes needed to save humanity. But that’s another question to Philoeren about

When I fly, I usually (but not always) do something that the planet gets better from (albeit not in carbon-demountable sense).

I had previously stopped stopping because I repels understanding stop myself.Already was last time I went with plane years or 10 ago. But would you stop doing something if it turns out that what you do does not yield what you want to achieve?

That person has an impact on the environment is certain, but that planet should be saved is not clear at all.It’s about to ask: Would you stop drinking alcohol to learn to read?

Doesn’t makes sense, right?

Because firstly:

  1. You can already read, otherwise how can you not understand this text.
  2. There is no link between learning to read and drink alcohol.

Statistic is one strong means by which certain behaviors can be linked to a disease, property, event etc.

Leave a Reply