The gory math of whether "muliple short hops" is better (climbtaxi, takeoff and climb-out costs a lot of fuel tooalso, so maybe not), or whether straight-thru flight is better or worse than electric HSR - is too much for this answer, but it's a place to look.
The gory math of whether "muliple short hops" is better (climb-out costs fuel too), or whether straight-thru flight is better or worse than electric HSR - is too much for this answer, but it's a place to look.
The gory math of whether "muliple short hops" is better (taxi, takeoff and climb-out costs a lot of fuel also, so maybe not), or whether straight-thru flight is better or worse than electric HSR - is too much for this answer, but it's a place to look.
Coarse rule of thumb, you'll burn your own weight in jet fuelby deciding to fly, along with thetotal fuel weight of your possessionsdivided by total pax weight is attributable to you*. Unlike trains, your decision matters That's a lot -- with airplanesit's your own weight in fuel, and probably quite a bit more.
As far as possessions, this isn't a train. Every gram of additional weight adds to every gram of additional weight adds to induced draginduced drag which adds to fuel burn. Every This isn't quite as bad, but still, on a 10,000km flight, every 1 gram of fuel burned makespossessions puts roughly 3 times its weight in1 gram of CO2 into the air.**
If you bring a 20g metal fork, then the airplane burns an extrayou just addded 20g of jet fuel making 60g of CO2 into the atmosphere. That's worse than a 3g plastic fork and 3g in jet fuelof CO2 (they're boththe fork is also made of ancient petroleum). And they won't know not to load a packaged meal for you, so they'll load it on the airplane anyway; that means the weight of your own meal is added to the fuel burn that will happen in any case.
Burning petroleum is worse than making packaging out of it and burying it in a landfill. Landfill is a kind of carbon capture, though certainly not a preferable one. When you landfill a petroleum product, it's a wash - it doesn't convert to CO2 since it doesn't burn. So that 3g fork makes 9g3g of CO2 if it's buried, or 18g12g if it's incinerated.
Also, refusing the meal is unlikely to result in any environmental savings. The logic is "they'll save it and serve it to someone else on a future flight" - not likely if it's heated/prepared, since it can't be heated twice (based on how aircraft galleys work; they're ovens not microwaves). Anyway, due to biocontrols it'll probably be destroyed at the destination.
Mind you, it also had to be grown in the first place, so you have all the CO2 load of factory farming to boot.
If you do bring your own food, focus on lightweight packaging even if it is throwaway. My "go-to" is Ziploc bags. Better to domake 1g fuel-burnof CO2 for a 1g ziploc bag, than 100g fuel burnCO2 for 100g of quality tupperware. Twice since I assume you'll bring it back.
Speaking of that: Luggage. Again, since your "stuff" takes fuel burn, make your luggage as light as possible. Don't bring a bunch of stupid thingsconsumables that are readily available at your destination. That's another "balance of priorities": re-buy something you already own, or spend 3x its weight in CO2 bringing it with you.
Speaking of that: You. Not to nag about your weight, but every Every pound of you that you leave at the gym is a pound of fuel not burned. Also hit the airport bathroom before the flight; waste is not ejected; it is stored in holding tanks.
Distance matters
Because of the "tyranny of the rocket equation" - airplanes get better fuel economy as their tanks empty out. Their fuel economy is worst at takeoff when they are heavy with fuel - in fact they are unable to climb to the most efficient high altitudes until they burn off some fuel. Longer flights have worse fuel economy than shorter ones. And yes, it matters, because they don't "top up", they depart with only the fuel they need.
The gory math of whether "muliple short hops" is better (climb-out costs fuel too), or whether straight-thru flight is better or worse than electric HSR - is too much for this answer, but it's a place to look.
A sidebar: Recycling doesn't work like you thinkWaste-stream recycling is a thing
Cities keep the blue bins due to citizen pressure/guilt, but it still needs to be picked through because people put lots of stupid stuff in the recycle bins. The upshot is, the "blue bins" are often "recycling theater", and actual recycling occurs farther down the waste stream. Likely so if your destination is an eco-minded place like western Europe or the usual coastal ports of entry in the US. YouSo the recycling may be happening even if it is not needapparent!
* You decided to workfly, and that hardmakes you responsible for your share of the airplane's weight, the fuel, and the fuel to getfly the recyclingfuel. Just to happenthrow a number out: An A380 carries 81,890 gallons of fuel. Say it's super-tight all-economy, seating 819 passengers (makes the math easy). Each passenger burns 100 gallons of fuel. Fuel weight 6.8 lbs/gal. so 680 pounds of gas. That's worst-case, but on a rather efficient bird. So I am very comfortable with "your own weight in fuel". However since possessions and bodymass are incremental, we look at those differently.
** Based on a comment that every extra kg of payload requires 0.2l of fuel (nearly 0.2kg) for a 6000km flight, and 1g of fuel makes 3g of CO2, so 0.6kg. I am stretching that to a 10,000km flight and it rounds to 1kg/1kg. Mind you Jet A is about 15% lighter than 1kg/1l, except the tyranny of the rocket equation makes the fuel burn probably 15% worse, so I'm calling that a wash.
Coarse rule of thumb, you'll burn your own weight in jet fuel, along with the weight of your possessions. Unlike trains, your decision matters -- with airplanes, every gram of additional weight adds to induced drag which adds to fuel burn. Every gram of fuel burned makes roughly 3 times its weight in CO2.
If you bring a 20g metal fork, then the airplane burns an extra 20g of jet fuel making 60g of CO2. That's worse than a 3g plastic fork and 3g in jet fuel (they're both made of ancient petroleum). And they won't know not to load a packaged meal for you, so they'll load it on the airplane anyway; that means the weight of your own meal is added to the fuel burn that will happen in any case.
Burning petroleum is worse than making packaging out of it and burying it in a landfill. Landfill is a kind of carbon capture, though certainly not a preferable one. When you landfill a petroleum product, it's a wash - it doesn't convert to CO2 since it doesn't burn. So that 3g fork makes 9g of CO2 if it's buried, or 18g if it's incinerated.
Also, refusing the meal is unlikely to result in any environmental savings. The logic is "they'll save it and serve it to someone else on a future flight" - not likely if it's heated/prepared. Anyway, due to biocontrols it'll probably be destroyed at the destination.
Mind you, it had to be grown in the first place.
If you do bring your own food, focus on lightweight packaging even if it is throwaway. My "go-to" is Ziploc bags. Better to do 1g fuel-burn for a 1g ziploc bag, than 100g fuel burn for 100g of quality tupperware. Twice since I assume you'll bring it back.
Speaking of that: Luggage. Again, since your "stuff" takes fuel burn, make your luggage as light as possible. Don't bring a bunch of stupid things that are readily available at your destination. That's another "balance of priorities": re-buy something you already own, or spend 3x its weight in CO2 bringing it with you.
Speaking of that: You. Not to nag about your weight, but every pound of you that you leave at the gym is a pound of fuel not burned.
A sidebar: Recycling doesn't work like you think
Cities keep the blue bins due to citizen pressure/guilt, but it still needs to be picked through because people put lots of stupid stuff in the recycle bins. The upshot is, the "blue bins" are often "recycling theater", and actual recycling occurs farther down the waste stream. Likely so if your destination is an eco-minded place like western Europe or the usual coastal ports of entry in the US. You may not need to work that hard to get the recycling to happen.
Coarse rule of thumb, by deciding to fly, total fuel weight divided by total pax weight is attributable to you*. That's a lot - it's your own weight in fuel, and probably quite a bit more.
As far as possessions, this isn't a train. Every gram of additional weight adds to induced drag which adds to fuel burn. This isn't quite as bad, but still, on a 10,000km flight, every 1 gram of possessions puts roughly 1 gram of CO2 into the air.**
If you bring a 20g metal fork, you just addded 20g of CO2 into the atmosphere. That's worse than a 3g plastic fork and 3g of CO2 (the fork is also made of petroleum). And they won't know not to load a packaged meal for you, so they'll load it on the airplane anyway; that means the weight of your own meal is added to the fuel burn that will happen in any case.
Burning petroleum is worse than making packaging out of it and burying it in a landfill. Landfill is a kind of carbon capture, though certainly not a preferable one. When you landfill a petroleum product, it's a wash - it doesn't convert to CO2 since it doesn't burn. So that 3g fork makes 3g of CO2 if it's buried, or 12g if it's incinerated.
Also, refusing the meal is unlikely to result in any environmental savings. The logic is "they'll save it and serve it to someone else on a future flight" - not likely if it's heated/prepared, since it can't be heated twice (based on how aircraft galleys work; they're ovens not microwaves). Anyway, due to biocontrols it'll probably be destroyed at the destination.
Mind you, it also had to be grown in the first place, so you have all the CO2 load of factory farming to boot.
If you do bring your own food, focus on lightweight packaging even if it is throwaway. My "go-to" is Ziploc bags. Better to make 1g of CO2 for a 1g ziploc bag, than 100g CO2 for 100g of quality tupperware. Twice since I assume you'll bring it back.
Speaking of that: Luggage. Again, since your "stuff" takes fuel burn, make your luggage as light as possible. Don't bring consumables that are readily available at your destination. That's another "balance of priorities": re-buy something you already own, or spend 3x its weight in CO2 bringing it with you.
Speaking of that: You. Every pound of you that you leave at the gym is a pound of fuel not burned. Also hit the airport bathroom before the flight; waste is not ejected; it is stored in holding tanks.
Distance matters
Because of the "tyranny of the rocket equation" - airplanes get better fuel economy as their tanks empty out. Their fuel economy is worst at takeoff when they are heavy with fuel - in fact they are unable to climb to the most efficient high altitudes until they burn off some fuel. Longer flights have worse fuel economy than shorter ones. And yes, it matters, because they don't "top up", they depart with only the fuel they need.
The gory math of whether "muliple short hops" is better (climb-out costs fuel too), or whether straight-thru flight is better or worse than electric HSR - is too much for this answer, but it's a place to look.
A sidebar: Waste-stream recycling is a thing
Cities keep the blue bins due to citizen pressure/guilt, but it still needs to be picked through because people put lots of stupid stuff in the recycle bins. The upshot is, the "blue bins" are often "recycling theater", and actual recycling occurs farther down the waste stream. Likely so if your destination is an eco-minded place like western Europe or the usual coastal ports of entry in the US. So the recycling may be happening even if it is not apparent!
* You decided to fly, and that makes you responsible for your share of the airplane's weight, the fuel, and the fuel to fly the fuel. Just to throw a number out: An A380 carries 81,890 gallons of fuel. Say it's super-tight all-economy, seating 819 passengers (makes the math easy). Each passenger burns 100 gallons of fuel. Fuel weight 6.8 lbs/gal. so 680 pounds of gas. That's worst-case, but on a rather efficient bird. So I am very comfortable with "your own weight in fuel". However since possessions and bodymass are incremental, we look at those differently.
** Based on a comment that every extra kg of payload requires 0.2l of fuel (nearly 0.2kg) for a 6000km flight, and 1g of fuel makes 3g of CO2, so 0.6kg. I am stretching that to a 10,000km flight and it rounds to 1kg/1kg. Mind you Jet A is about 15% lighter than 1kg/1l, except the tyranny of the rocket equation makes the fuel burn probably 15% worse, so I'm calling that a wash.
Oh,If you bring a 20g metal fork? Then, then the airplane burns an extra 20g of jet fuel making 60g of CO2. That's worse than a 3g plastic fork and 3g in jet fuel (they're both made of ancient petroleum). And they won't know not to load a packaged meal for you, so they'll load it on the airplane anyway; that means the weight of your own meal is added to the fuel burn that will happen in any case.
Also, refusing the meal is unlikely to result in any environmental savings. The logic is "they'll save it and serve it to someone else on a future flight" - not likely if it's heated/prepared. Anyway, due to biocontrols it'll probably be destroyed at the destination. You might as well just eat it.
Keep in mind, Big Minds are already working on the environmental-waste-of-aviation problem. "Disposable It's not as simple as "Disposable packaging bad" is an eco-novice's knee-jerk, and it's a mistake to think "nothing is being done, and I am the only hero of the environment"done". It'sIt's more complicated and subtle than that, especially when you start thinking of the damage of poor biocontrols, e.g. disease, invasive species, that kind of thing. They sterilize foreign waste for a reason.
Recycling from intercontinental jetliners is weird, because of biocontrols. But to speak of recycling generally -- again, you're not the solitary hero. Recycling efforts are already made on waste streams. Metals are separated by magnets or eddy currents; and laborers pick out cardboard, sacks of newspapers and grabbable plastics. Many cities have found it's cheaper to have one waste stream and have machines/laborers separate recycling, than to have citizens have multiple waste cans.
Cities keep the blue bins due to citizen pressure/guilt, but it still needs to be picked through because people put lots of stupid stuff in the recycle bins. The upshot is, the "blue bins" are often "recycling theater", and actual recycling occurs farther down the waste stream, whether there are blue bins or not! Therefore, don't presume that your flight waste isn't recycled or handled responsibly. It probably is - Likely so if your destination is an eco-minded place like western Europe ofor the usual coastal ports of entry in the US.
Recognize that many "eco" gestures are empty
As you see, it's really easy You may not need to do easy, simple things that really feel like you're being 'eco' but don't do much at all. Don't be distracted by stuff that seems "easy" merely because you have more control over it. Look behind the curtain and see what really matters, and focus onwork that. And make the hard calls: "Do I really need to pack that?" "Is this trip necessary?"get the recycling to happen.
Oh, you bring a 20g metal fork? Then the airplane burns an extra 20g of jet fuel making 60g of CO2. That's worse than a 3g plastic fork and 3g in jet fuel (they're both made of ancient petroleum). And they won't know not to load a packaged meal for you, so they'll load it on the airplane anyway; that means the weight of your own meal is added to the fuel burn that will happen in any case.
Also, refusing the meal is unlikely to result in any environmental savings. The logic is "they'll save it and serve it to someone else on a future flight" - not likely if it's heated/prepared. Anyway, due to biocontrols it'll probably be destroyed at the destination. You might as well just eat it.
Keep in mind, Big Minds are already working on the environmental-waste-of-aviation problem. "Disposable packaging bad" is an eco-novice's knee-jerk, and it's a mistake to think "nothing is being done, and I am the only hero of the environment". It's more complicated and subtle than that, especially when you start thinking of the damage of poor biocontrols, e.g. disease, invasive species, that kind of thing. They sterilize foreign waste for a reason.
Recycling from intercontinental jetliners is weird, because of biocontrols. But to speak of recycling generally -- again, you're not the solitary hero. Recycling efforts are already made on waste streams. Metals are separated by magnets or eddy currents; and laborers pick out cardboard, sacks of newspapers and grabbable plastics. Many cities have found it's cheaper to have one waste stream and have machines/laborers separate recycling, than to have citizens have multiple waste cans.
Cities keep the blue bins due to citizen pressure/guilt, but it still needs to be picked through because people put lots of stupid stuff in the recycle bins. The upshot is, the "blue bins" are often "recycling theater", and actual recycling occurs farther down the waste stream, whether there are blue bins or not! Therefore, don't presume that your flight waste isn't recycled or handled responsibly. It probably is - if your destination is an eco-minded place like western Europe of the usual coastal ports of entry in the US.
Recognize that many "eco" gestures are empty
As you see, it's really easy to do easy, simple things that really feel like you're being 'eco' but don't do much at all. Don't be distracted by stuff that seems "easy" merely because you have more control over it. Look behind the curtain and see what really matters, and focus on that. And make the hard calls: "Do I really need to pack that?" "Is this trip necessary?"
If you bring a 20g metal fork, then the airplane burns an extra 20g of jet fuel making 60g of CO2. That's worse than a 3g plastic fork and 3g in jet fuel (they're both made of ancient petroleum). And they won't know not to load a packaged meal for you, so they'll load it on the airplane anyway; that means the weight of your own meal is added to the fuel burn that will happen in any case.
Also, refusing the meal is unlikely to result in any environmental savings. The logic is "they'll save it and serve it to someone else on a future flight" - not likely if it's heated/prepared. Anyway, due to biocontrols it'll probably be destroyed at the destination.
Keep in mind, Big Minds are already working on the environmental-waste-of-aviation problem. It's not as simple as "Disposable packaging bad", and it's a mistake to think "nothing is being done". It's more complicated and subtle than that, especially when you start thinking of the damage of poor biocontrols, e.g. disease, invasive species, that kind of thing.
Recycling from intercontinental jetliners is weird, because of biocontrols. But to speak of recycling generally -- Recycling efforts are already made on waste streams. Metals are separated by magnets or eddy currents; and laborers pick out cardboard, sacks of newspapers and grabbable plastics. Many cities have found it's cheaper to have one waste stream and have machines/laborers separate recycling, than to have citizens have multiple waste cans.
Cities keep the blue bins due to citizen pressure/guilt, but it still needs to be picked through because people put lots of stupid stuff in the recycle bins. The upshot is, the "blue bins" are often "recycling theater", and actual recycling occurs farther down the waste stream. Likely so if your destination is an eco-minded place like western Europe or the usual coastal ports of entry in the US. You may not need to work that hard to get the recycling to happen.
Loading