Just 1% of people are responsible for half of all toxic emissions from flying.

  • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    So it makes sense to divide planes mpg by passenger but not car mpg by passenger? Because the 67mpg you’re quoting is per passenger.

    A 4 passenger car that gets 20mpg, what’s the mpg per passenger? Two ways to get to the result: fuel used is divided between passengers so each passenger uses 25% of the fuel, so 20mpg/25% = 80mpg per passenger OR even simpler, 20 mpg x 4 passengers. The result is the same. For planes, using my example from another comment, 82mpg/passenger, 388 passengers, 82/388 = 0.21mpg/passenger with one passenger.

    Don’t tell me you truly believe that planes consume 67mpg by themselves because then you’ll have to explain why they need to cary thousands of gallons of fuel… (13k gallons for a 777)

    Again, you’re comparing the average number of passengers for all road trips vs the average number of passengers for all airline trips, but the purpose of both isn’t the same and just because someone took a plane to go somewhere doesn’t mean they won’t be taking their car to work. Compare both travels for the same purpose (in this discussion, vacations) and people don’t tend to go on vacation alone, that increases the number of passengers in the car, they don’t tend to go as far in their car so that also lowers the amount of fuel used for the vacation.

    • Zoolander@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      For all purposes of travel, planes are more efficient. The longer a plane trip is the more efficient it is because the plane loses weight as you travel, not the other way around.

      How can you ignore the multiple sources I’ve provided to still get the math wrong? Flying is more fuel efficient than cars. The only way you can make it less efficient is to limit the car rides to only rides that have 3+ passengers and only those that are multiple hundreds of miles in distance. That limits the trips we’re talking about to such a small percentage of auto travel that making progress in that specific area renders it meaningless. The majority of the carbon impact of driving comes from all the other usage. Airline travel has been more efficient than road travel since the start of the millennium.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        For all purposes of travel, planes are more efficient. The longer a plane trip is *the more efficient it is* because the plane loses weight as you travel, not the other way around.

        The 67mpg/passenger number from the source I provided is based on trillions of miles traveled, don’t you think that’s taken into consideration?

        I don’t get the math wrong, you interpret the data incorrectly and think that planes get 67mpg/vehicle instead of 67mpg/passenger and you compare car rides to work to long distance air travel instead of comparing leisure travel for both in which case cars are much more likely to be used for multi passenger travel.

        • Zoolander@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          you interpret the data incorrectly and think that planes get 67mpg/vehicle

          No I don’t. I have never said that anywhere.

          Stop lying and stop moving the goalposts.

            • Zoolander@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, I don’t. I’m arguing against your multiplication of the mpg of the Suburban because you arbitrarily picked 3 passengers. The 67mpg/passenger amount for planes is based on the average number of passengers in a plane. If we did what you’re doing and picked it based on ideal figures to suit our own points, the mpg for the plane would be even higher.

              • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                What was the average distance travelled by plane again? You keep dodging that part. If the plane is more efficient per passenger mile but people travel three to four times further when taking a plane for vacation vs a car then that means… oh my… plane vacations are less efficient because people use the fact that they travel quicker as a justification to go further away! 😱

                Unless you think that the average American would travel 1900 miles by car (one way) for a one week vacation. Because if you think so then you’re truly hopeless.

                • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  What are you talking about?!

                  Planes are more efficient the farther the distance traveled! The average commercial flight was 900km for 2022. Planes still only account for 5% of the total emissions when including commercial, private, and transport flights and accounting for emissions from contrails. Now do that math for cars, trucks, and ground transport. Go ahead.

                  people use the fact that they travel quicker as a justification to go further away!

                  They absolutely do not. People choose their destination first and then they determine the mode of transport. No one changes their destination to someplace farther away because it takes less time to get there by plane than it does by driving.

                  Unless you think that the average American would travel 1900 miles by car (one way) for a one week vacation

                  They wouldn’t. I don’t see how that’s relevant. If someone needs to travel from CA to NYC for a trip, a car isn’t even an option for them. If someone wants to go from Alaska to Texas, a car isn’t an option for them. Even if you banned most commercial flights, that doesn’t change the calculus. It just makes the remaining flights more expensive and forces people to find alternatives to get there. If a family decides they want to go to Disney World for a vacation, they’re going to pick the only method of travel that’s practical. They’re not going to go to Six Flags instead because they can get there by car.