'Flight shaming' and the ethics of recreational flying?

[NT5224]

Hi folks!

 

A tough one here.

 

Recent  events have placed climate change concerns front and centre of the political agenda. As somebody who lives on the land, my observation of recent weather and climatic conditions in the far north has been cause for concern...

 

Im no greenie,  but I recognize the need to be more environmentally aware  in our lives, if not for our sakes, then for future generations.  And my wife and I have tried hard to translate intent into action. Im not going to list the things we do to try and reduce our environmental impacts, as am sure that most responsibly minded people do likewise...

 

I guess the most gratuitous emissions we produce are from aviation. This is an unresolved question in our minds. Ive got no idea how emissions from a light aero engine compare with other emissions sources (can somebody here tell me?), but I suspect that as time passes private flying is not only going to be perceived as an expensive luxury but also an environmentally selfish one.  For now the focus of Flygskam  angst  is commercial jet travel which obviously account for the bulk of aviation emissions. But sooner or later somebody is going to pick up on all the little Cessna's, Pipers and Jabirus buzzing around, and the dirty two-strokes screaming behind ultralights.  How does flying in a light aircraft compare with emissions per capita/mile in a commercial aircraft? Im assuming even higher.

 

Personally I'd love to have an electric aircraft. Since all my power is solar, it would be good and cheap to run  although Im not sure how useful current models would be for bush flying...  The range is a big concern.

 

But other than putting the plane on bricks, growing a beard,  wearing sandals and eating mung beans,  is there anything we can actually do to make our passion more environmentally responsible?   Gliding? 

 

Has anybody yet given this much thought? I guess its a personal accommodation we each need to make....

 

Alan

 

 

[spacesailor]

Mine is on bricks & at 6 litres p hour, it shouldn't be unfrendly, not a twostroke either.

 

But not by my doing, I'd rather be soaring like an eagle, than making takeoff noises sitting in the shed.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[turboplanner]

There's an old saying "Let sleeping dogs lie"

 

We need a battery break-through to make electric cars and aircraft viable in three areas

 

1. Prime Cost

 

2. Range when under power (not at grandma speed)

 

3. Economic and timely charging (If you've got 30 amp electric capability from your solar, you'd be OK (but I think you might be a first if you did)

 

What the automotive industry has done is try to get a hybrid version of every model on line by 2022, so self-generated constant charging, smaller batteries, smaller CO2 output from the ICE engine, low power for cruise speed, electric power boost for acceleration bursts, and most important no need to spend a trillion dollars on tooling for new platforms which have to be amortised over 10-20 years to avoid selling Nissan Leaf type mini-car $17,000 ICE for $50,000, and Commodore size for over $100,000.

 

 

[Downunder]

Putting 95/98 bowsers at airports would improve emissions greatly. 

 

Many aircraft can use ulp but it's not convenient. 

 

I was investigating putting a ulp bowser in at my local airport.

 

I ended up getting a "stern" email from Air BP which has the resident avgas bowser.

 

Most of the email was deceiving, if not outright wrong.

 

Basically they were protecting their turf.

 

It dawned on me that there are significant and entrenched "powers" very keen on maintaining the lucrative status quo. 

 

 

[old man emu]

I don't know how accurate this, from an article about boat engines, is Petrol engine 4-stroke inboard or outboard 100 HP: 30-38 liters / hour or 34 liters / hour on average. Mémotechnic: petrol engine consumption = 1/3rd of the power, but it sounds reasonable. Some expert here will correct my assumption.

 

So, the boats we see on trailers in front yards, and on coastal highways during the holidays cost about as much as a two-seater puddle jumper that we fly. They use about the same amount of fuel as our planes. So why should owner/pilots be singled out as environmental rapists?

 

 

[Thruster88]

Driving to church or the footy or towing a caravan around Australia at 80kmh? or going to the shops or macas three time a day are all unnecessary, I don't feel guilty. 

 

 

[Litespeed]

The whole fuel use vs utility vs need to get somewhere vs other power vs type of vehicle etc is complex.

 

The average blokes fishing cum pleasure boat  can have a  100hp and some even 500hp all very thirsty if given their head. 35 Lt a hour per 100 HP at  aprrox 70 % load. So heaps, but going slow very little. The petrol powered gin palace can use 200 litre s a hour at med speeds. 

 

But, the smaller four stroke  10-15 hp  and better two stroke motors are great economy wise and can get 4-5 nm a litre on a efficient light little boat at 10 knots, that's what mine does.

 

The best for bigger boats are displacement hulls, they have a hull speed dependant on length and shape.

 

Generally 6-10 knts and all have diesels.

 

The best tend to be sailboat or motor sailers . on motor alone, even with a 120 HP ford Lees, 1 litre per nm is the av. The bigger and longer boats surprisingly don't use huge amounts. But if it runs a old two stroke diesel they are thirsty and the same machine might be 1.5 litres nm. The best by a ocean mile is a Gardener, the best big boat motor in the world. The same boat with a 'G' spot will only use 0.5 litres nm. So huge difference.

 

The above figures are for a 52 ft ferro sailboat weighing 32 tons. So very cheap to move such a heavy thing, but the weight gives a very comfy boat at sea. 

 

Nothing can travel the world with less impact than a sailing ship. Which is where I will be heading soon. 

 

Living off the ocean using the winds, solar power and a very efficient diesel can be a very fun life and low impact on nature and the wallet.

 

And it can be run on biodiesel, chip oil etc if processed properly. So in theory can be completely fossil fuel free.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

It’s all hypothetical and pointless. 

The  big thing is that Australia’s total CO2 production is about 1 % of the earths anthropogenic total (which needs to be dropped by 45% to make any difference. )

This includes the minuscule amount made by the negligible number of recreational aircraft.  ( And no one should be allowed to bring up that STUPID statement that Aussie have the highest per capital production. That’s a scientifically idiotic statement because the climate is changed by the total mass of greenhouse gases not by how many people made it. It doesn’t care whether one person, or twenty million make the  amount only the total amount present. ) 

 

 

So even if we ceased ALL production of CO2 instantly it would make zero difference because it would only drop the rest world CO2 lowered production requirement from 45 to 44% of total. And make exactly no difference at all. 

Throw into the mix that the three biggest emitters ( USA, China and India) make more CO2 in a week than we make in a year and all their emissions are rising - and the elephant in the room that no one in Australia wants to mention is that there is nothing we can do to change anything - beyond hold the high moral ground ( and remember that apart from us here in Australia here, (we think we a big players in the world ) in fact most of the rest of the world has no clue who we are, where we are, and much more couldn't give a stuff what we say or do) 

 

Sure we can hold some moral position based on the glowing halos we have over our heads but we shouldn’t beat ourselves up, nor allow ourselves to be beaten up by others, because we have toys that emit probably less gases than the collective lawn mowers of the rest of the population. 

 

 

[Litespeed]

I don't really see the use of our scale planes as a huge issue on the scale of overall emissions.

 

However, like any fuel use it still counts if it fossilised carbon based. As a community and planet wide, we all need to do our bit to reduce our emissions.

 

Reducing unessary trips in the car can save heaps. Flying to do work or even holidaying can be a great deal lower emissions in a Jabiru compared to a big car or 4wd. 

 

It all depends on the destination etc.

 

I do not fly in big jets, haven't for over a decade. Don't need to, so ...

 

 

[Litespeed]

It’s all hypothetical pointless. 

the big thing is that Australia’s total CO2 production is about 1 % of the earths anthropogenic total which needs to be dropped by 45% to make any difference. 

this includes the minuscule amount made by the negligible 

 

 

so even if we ceased ALL production of CO2 instantly it would make zero difference because it would drop the rest world CO2 producti

 

 

 

 

 

Congratulations for gratuitous use of strawman argument to abdicate all responsibility.

 

No one is saying we alone have to do that. Nor that if we did the rest of the planet would do nothing.

 

That is plain stupid.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I like your attitude NT, but personally I don't feel guilty about the Jabiru. It uses about the same petrol per mile as a car and there are a great many useless miles driven in cars every day. Some commuters go over 100km. Now I am retired, I would move so that somebody else could commute less but there are serious  financial disincentives stopping this happening. They could be fixed by the government.

 

My responsibility is to vote for the proper policies and this would be more effective than  doing  my own thing. There is a lot the government could and should be doing, such as the commuting business and taxing carbon and subsidizing non-carbon energy.

 

As regards gliding, well when I bought my Jabiru kit, it was cheaper than the SALES TAX on the glider I had been thinking of. Yes, the government had it wrong but you can't fight against the government except on election day. 

 

 

[mkennard]

It’s all hypothetical and pointless. 

The  big thing is that Australia’s total CO2 production is about 1 % of the earths anthropogenic total (which needs to be dropped by 45% to make any difference. )

This includes the minuscule amount made by the negligible number of recreational aircraft.  ( And no one should be allowed to bring up that STUPID statement that Aussie have the highest per capital production. That’s a scientifically idiotic statement because the climate is changed by the total mass of greenhouse gases not by how many people made it. It doesn’t care whether one person, or twenty million make the  amount only the total amount present. ) 

 

 

So even if we ceased ALL production of CO2 instantly it would make zero difference because it would only drop the rest world CO2 lowered production requirement from 45 to 44% of total. And make exactly no difference at all. 

Throw into the mix that the three biggest emitters ( USA, China and India) make more CO2 in a week than we make in a year and all their emissions are rising - and the elephant in the room that no one in Australia wants to mention is that there is nothing we can do to change anything - beyond hold the high moral ground ( and remember that apart from us here in Australia here, (we think we a big players in the world ) in fact most of the rest of the world has no clue who we are, where we are, and much more couldn't give a stuff what we say or do) 

 

Sure we can hold some moral position based on the glowing halos we have over our heads but we shouldn’t beat ourselves up, nor allow ourselves to be beaten up by others, because we have toys that emit probably less gases than the collective lawn mowers of the rest of the population. 

 

Two things that come to mind.

 

1. Imagine if we could be at the forefront of technology to help the world, we have a lot of smart people who end up taken up by overseas institutions. Imagine if we supported them here.

 

2. I recently thought of drugs. Why bother trying to catch people importing or making drugs. It's the same argument. They never seems to make a difference when they catch someone and there is always someone else to fill up the gap in production but they spend millions trying to catch them anyway. So if we could use the same drive for climate change we might make a difference for everyone.

 

 

[kgwilson]

The argument of "we only produce x% of global emissions is a cop out and irrelevant. Every human on this planet (almost 8 billion of us) contributes in some way to the change in our climate. None of us can really do anything as an individual unless you are immersed in the issue. Our way of life means we use cars/trucks/planes and our infrastructure requires megatons of fossil fuel to run plus we power our lifestyles with it as well. We have to change for survival of our species and it is happening but at a pretty slow rate. The massive uptake of renewable energy from solar and wind is a great example along with the huge development in energy storage. Awareness is one of the greatest drivers. We can all do a little but the big polluters like coal fired power will eventually die as the cost of creating replacements is way above that of renewables.

 

My contribution is less than most of the Petrol Heads and power boat owners around. I will still keep flying using fossil fuel just as I will keep driving my car. I am though aware of the issue and am reducing my carbon foot print in other ways. 

 

When I was born 70 years ago in a months time the global population was 2 billion, now it's almost 8 billion and the improvements in technology and living standards have improved exponentially in that time. Population is the biggest problem but it's going nowhere soon.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

 

 

 

Congratulations for gratuitous use of strawman argument to abdicate all responsibility.

 

No one is saying we alone have to do that. Nor that if we did the rest of the planet would do nothing.

 

That is plain stupid.

 

Can’t see how there’s any straw man argument here. 

 

It’s just a collection of straight facts. 

1.  pretty much every reputable climate scientist says we need to drop WORLD production of CO2 by 45% to hold the temperature rise. 

 

 

2. Australia makes 1% of world CO2 so even complete cessation of CO2 production in Australia can make no possible difference. 

 

 

3. arguments for Australia cutting emissions have hinged on 2 positions - 

 

 

  A. The argument that Australians have the highest per capita ( some debate as to highest or second highest depending on method of calculation- but immaterial) per person.  But this is just plain pointless scientifically  because we still make a negligible insignificant total amount as far as climate change goes. And pretty much all our CO2 gets dragged south-east then north to the equator and  rolls south again becoming admixed with the CO2 made by The rest of the Southern Hemisphere and the CO2 we make doesn’t contribute specifically or individually to our weather/climate. 

 

 

B.  The high moral ground - so we can pressure other countries who do make more to lower it.  Well the reality is that these countries don’t care what we say or claim.  despite our bleating they have gone up not down in their production.

 

if we are going to do anything it should be something that works not something that doesn’t. ( especially if the thing that doesn’t work is going to cost us lots or lower our standard of living. )

 

I could suggest we all wear purple underwear with pink spots - it would have the same effect as spending a fortune on efforts to move 1% to 0.65% of the worlds CO2 production. 

 

 

Humans  are really good at getting  a warm fuzzy glow by doing “something” even if  it doesn’t work. They feel bad if they do nothing even if they know doing something  is just as useless as doing nothing. 

 

 

 

[kgwilson]

So by that argument other countries who also only produce 1 or 2 percent can say the same thing so if there are 50 or 60 countries with the same statement all of a sudden half of the worlds emission stay the same or increase. NO we must all deal with it or eventually perish. I'll be dead before this happens, if it does but poeple being born today will certainly feel the brunt.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

So by that argument other countries who also only produce 1 or 2 percent can say the same thing so if there are 50 or 60 countries with the same statement all of a sudden half of the worlds emission stay the same or increase. NO we must all deal with it or eventually perish. I'll be dead before this happens, if it does but poeple being born today will certainly feel the brunt.

 

Nope - the economies of these countries you speak of doesn’t allow that to happen. There are about 180 countries in the world but more than half the CO2  is made by three countries ( USA, China and India).

 

 

~177 countries make  less than 50% most don’t make even 1% each. Some make near on Zero Some make single digits. only a few make upper single digits and yes some of those might be able to decrease their production a bit but not as much as you might think. 

With the levels that many of these countries make CO2, the laws of ”economy of scale” reversed apply. That is the cost to effect even a small change is huge per capita because there are very few people to share the cost. ( This applies in Australia) this cost is even beyond the finances of many small countries and because the amounts of CO 2 are negligible are in effect costs:benefit ratios  approaching infinity. 

when it costs billions to lower a CO2 output by .45% of world production and has a net zero effect then that money could be spent better elsewhere, if we could figure out to make it actually work. 

 

 

The argument is, we and all countries who make any CO2 have to find ways that ACTUALLY  work - it may well be thinking out of the box - to get the countries who make the most CO2 to lower their production. so far attempts to do it by maintaining the high moral ground have failed  ( and appear to be getting worse since the US is pulling out of all Paris Accord. ) 

 

Doing anything here is just a ”warm and fuzzy” So we can do what we are doing, feel good about it while the world burns and we kid ourselves. 

Or we can look at other ways of dealing with recalcitrant nations. 

 

all the time we ( recreational fliers) can’t beat ourselves up about how ”what we are doing is causing the problems” - it clearly isn’t. 

 

 

[Litespeed]

You seem to be very happy to quote figures that don't stack up.

 

Besides the fact we are the biggest exporter in the world in coal and LNG both which create huge emissions and pollution in mining and usage.

 

Arguments, they will buy it elsewhere are not entirely true, we have been pushing coal real hard and CNG and done political hit jobs on any green competition on a global scale, this has been for decades.

 

Your wish to do nothing, in the knowledge that it is a issue, does not change the actual effect we have on the planet.

 

Its like living in world where murder is legal and refusing to allow it to become illegal, because others have murder in their country. OR how about refusing to ban machine guns to angry blokes, because they are cheap and available in Africa?

 

 

[Litespeed]

So by that argument other countries who also only produce 1 or 2 percent can say the same thing so if there are 50 or 60 countries with the same statement all of a sudden half of the worlds emission stay the same or increase. NO we must all deal with it or eventually perish. I'll be dead before this happens, if it does but poeple being born today will certainly feel the brunt.

 

Well said,

 

Except we are already feeling it, it is happening right this moment. Global heating- a better name than climate change is getting into more obvious effects but has been with us since anyone here was born. We just had not reach such a critical point where the heating effects caused such large changes in climatic systems. 

 

It is pushing more than 50 years since smart minds new this was a huge problem and 30 since the public were generally aware. The pollies and big oil have known since the beginning.

 

In every possible way not just with Co2, us humans have completely changed the planet that sustains all known life. And it is a very complex ecological system.   

 

Anyone notice the big dust storms? Thats, billions of tons of soil from mainly farms disturbed soil been lost. That soil took 100's to thousands of years to form. Yes we can pour resources into helping but the soil we lost is gone. We have the oldest and most impoverished soils in the world, we must manage soil better and not farm marginal land that is easily damaged. And our rivers- dryed up zones of dead fish and now the others have copped ash and that is killing as well.

 

The environment when I was born is vastly changed today and all for the worse. With the exception of less rabbits. But we didn't have to wreck the joint for that small change. Yes, we have cleaned up some really nasty chemical plants of days past but the poison still exists, we just moved it. 

 

In 1964 the seminal "Silent Spring" by DR Racheal Carson was published, she proved all the connections of DDT use and the collapse of insects and bird numbers. We were covering the planet in toxins and killing off life at a massive rate for a short term chemical fix for mosquitoes and some ag pests. 7 years later DDT was banned in the US.

 

WE are still making and using similar chemicals and decimating insect life and the birds that eat these bio accumulators. No fish on the planet, even in the Antarctic is free from their traces. Same with microplastics and bigger bits, Antarctic fish have them too.

 

We are already in the pot, and it is getting close to boiling.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Is there anything we can actually do to make our passion more environmentally responsible?    

 

The  focus at the present time is on a theory that CO2 is causing global warming; there's increasing doubt about that as to whether it's leading or lagging. I mentioned before that it's best to let sleeping dogs lie, but now we have a loud and very public catfight going out to the world, and in particular to members of the same Federal Department which administers both cars and aircraft in Australia. What is likely when these people realise aicraft got off the hook in the 1970s because emissions then were focused on NOx (Oxides of Nitrogen) and PM (Particulate Matter), both of which cause lung cancer, not something nice like higher sea levels.

 

Ever the nation to be seen to be doing something that Nations with a more affordable volume were doing, we adopted the EURO I standard in July 1992. The following figures are in grammes per kilometre, and show the limit allowed.

 

CO (Carbon Monoxide) was 2.72

 

NOx had no limit

 

PM was 0.14

 

This had a massive effect on the viability of the automotive and transport industries; e.g. Cummins Diesel set up a US$1 billion budget per year for emission research, and car and truck builders had to wind down their design improvement programmes by the same proportions.

 

Euro III introduced a standard on NOx at 0.5

 

Euro V, which Australia is currently on has:

 

CO: 0.50

 

NOx: 0.18

 

PM: 0.0045

 

Euro VI is now applicable in Europe with:

 

CO: 0.50

 

NOx; 0.08

 

PM: 0.0045

 

Australia has not picked up EuroVI yet because we have the huge prolem of getting some of the dirtiest fuel in the world, and it would be a legal nightmare if cars were registered in Australia as compliant, but would fail because of the dirty fuel going in the front end.

 

I mentioned the relatively new promotion of CO2 as the cause of Global Warming. You'll notice that there has never been a standard in motor vehicles for CO2, and various "scientist"/regulators have thrown figures up in the air, and we could have a shiny new CO2 standard to add to the mix soon.

 

What does this mean for aircraft; well to begin with, there are no complying recreational aircraft engines.

 

Secondly, no manufacturer of recreational aircraft engines has a $multi-billion budget to do the extensive design and testing.

 

So there's a very good chance that you won't have to take any action to be more environmental when your current engine wears out, because you'll be out of the air if a decision is made to introduce emission standards to aircraft.

 

Don't think this can happen? I can remember the day Australia knocked out 15" brakes on Australian products by introducing an ADR too expensive for our combined industries to meet. 

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Rachel Carson killed more people than Hitler or Stalin. We nearly had the bad mossies eradicated. DDT thinned the shell of the American bald eagle but otherwise wasn’t doing much harm. Likewise action to reduce CO2 will have unintended consequences.

 

 

[old man emu]

If it's our coal and natural gas exports that are major contributors to atmospheric CO2  increase, then the only moral thing to do is to stop gathering the stuff and exporting it. Any failure to take that course of action is immoral.

 

Of course you and I, and the rest of the Public can't do anything like that because we lack the Power and money to make anything happen. 

 

 

[Marty_d]

You guys do realise there's a whole thread devoted to climate change on the other site?

 

 

[Jabiru7252]

If we reduced our use of resources to just 1% of what we use now it wouldn't matter. Population growth is not being addressed and the fact is one day we'll run out of room. Imagine 50 billion or 100 billion trying to eat, sleep, take a dump and stay alive on a planet that struggles with 7.5 billion. 

 

 

[robinsm]

guys, breathing, cow fa.ts, insect emissions and worm juice all produce CO2.   Do we get rid of thos too.   I think if you are going to worry about all of the things that peoduce CO2 then nothing will get done.   Maybe we should all live in sealed caves using co2 filters.  Aircraft do very little to increase the CO2 load.  Plant more trees and get over it...

 

 

[spacesailor]

Posted in "off topic"

 

Hydrocaqrbon emissions has gone through the roof.

 

" https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/a-potent-greenhouse-gas-was-supposed-to-be-eliminated-but-something-is-wrong/"

 

and the scientis don't know why !

 

spacesailor