Questo sito web utilizza cookie. Continuando a usare e a navigare su questo sito, accetti l'utilizzo dei cookie.
Chiudi
Sapevi che il tracking dei voli di FlightAware è supportato dalla pubblicità?
Puoi aiutarci a mantenere FlightAware gratuito accettando gli annunci pubblicitari di FlightAware.com. Ci impegniamo per far sì che i nostri annunci siano pertinenti e discreti per offrire la migliore esperienza. Aggiungere gli annunci ammessi su FlightAware è facile e veloce oppure puoi prendere in considerazione i nostri account premium.
Chiudi
Back to Squawk list
  • 34

Lufthansa CEO Calls Out Flight Shamers As ‘Fake News’

Aggiunto
 
He pointed out how much good is being done in aviation, and how little its contribution to CO2 emissions really is... (simpleflying.com) Altro...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


SkyCaptain757
SkyCaptain757 18
I love aviation as much as you all, and I’m an airline pilot, but I don’t see anything wrong with people reducing their amount of flying, and calling in to question how much flying is really necessary. Aviation may be a “small” contributor, but the Earth doesn’t care about small or efficiency. It cares about net emissions into the atmosphere. Aviation is still a contributor that many can personally choose to reduce. An individual can’t force a local power plant to switch from coal to renewable energy, or personally make less cement, but individuals can choose to fly less, or take a more efficient means of transport, if it exists, on shorter routes. One day bored on reserve, I went through government data, and found US scheduled carriers burn about 48 million gallons of fuel a day. Note - this doesn’t include the thousands of ground vehicles, power units, electrical demand from aircraft, airport lighting, fuel burned by snow removal equipment, transport of food for catering, transport of fuel for aircraft, buses, massive cement required for runways, etc. It is about far more than just the jet fuel burned out the tail pipe.
tongo
Dan Grelinger 3
Before you buy the climate change alarmists story, ask intelligent questions. Such as, “Hasn’t life on earth flourished during warm periods of higher atmospheric CO2, and hasn’t there been mass extinctions when the earth has historicially cooled?” Or, “What are the confidence levels on the dire predictions about climatic weather trends?” (You’ll find they are not shared because in reality they are extremely low). Or “What would cost more the human race more, the actions necessary to keep CO2 levels at recent historical levels (say 100 years ago), versus engineering our way through any negative climate change effects, no matter what their cause?” (You will find that the cost to mankind is tremendously higher to limit atmospheric CO2 to previous levels versus just dealing with whatever changes are going to occur regardless. And given the HUGE uncertainty around climate change forecasts (they can’t even get a 1 month forecast right the majority of the time) money spent trying to solve this uncertain problem is likely wasted.

Don’t drink the Kool-Aid until you know what is in it.
Brt1007
Bruce Thomas 4
Consider that CO2 makes up just .0004 parts of the atmosphere. It’s spread around the atmosphere and does not collect in a reflective layer, as the glass in a greenhouse. It’s just not dense enough to reflect or absorb heat in any appreciable amounts. The real greenhouse gas is water vapor. CO2 does not have a liquid phase, does not form clouds, etc.

There is pollution from burning fossil fuels, but it is not the colorless, odorless plant food that is the source of the phrase ‘carbon footprint’. This whole climate alarmism movement has taken on the dimensions of a religious cult. There is even an end-of-the world prediction thrown in with the rest of the bogus catechism.


A Kool-aid opportunity if there ever was one.
brock55
brock55 0
By your theory that people should travel less also means less jobs for pilots (you won't be on reserve anymore but you will need an updated resume), F/A's, mechanics, ground crews, and etc... Also you theory implies less travel which means people should never leave their house based on the worry about emissions. I do not know the numbers because I don't sit around researching but I would imagine the amount of fuel that cars/trucks burn worldwide would exceed jet fuel.
SkyCaptain757
SkyCaptain757 13
Thankfully I have not been on reserve in long time, but I see your point. However I view global emissions and climate change as frankly more important than my job. If flying decreases some to cut emissions, and the job market shrinks, so be it. Desperate times call for desperate measures. This is more than just about me.

My theory implied only that we as society need to consider the necessity of our actions that emit greenhouse gases. Should you never leave your house - well as least in much of the United States, our infrastructure is such that we often have no choice but to use our vehicle to go out for food or to meet friends in our sprawling suburbs. Issues like this require structural changes such as more efficient public transport. But that’s an entirely different topic that entire books are written about. My point was only thinking about what is really necessary.

You’re right that the emissions from trucks and vehicles exceeds jet fuel because there are far, far more of them. That does not excuse or somehow cancel out jet fuel emissions. As I said, the Earth’s climate system doesn’t point at aviation and excuse it because it’s relatively small. The Earth cares about net emissions. Do we need to improve auto efficiency? Certainly! Every industry needs to reduce, massively.
brock55
brock55 -9
If global emissions and climate change are more important than your job then maybe you should resign so the next in line can upgrade or come off reserve. You can then join their movement. You implied that you were on reserve recently when you did the research. Then you stated you have not been in a while so your data is old and therefore may no longer be accurate. Your livelihood depends on airplanes and the aviation is easy to pick on.

How about the governments who are complaining but yet ride in entourages with multiple large SUVs? They are more at fault that the aviation industry.

So the questions begs, if your livelihood depends on airplanes then why not defend the steps the airlines and manufactures are making towards reducing emissions instead of agreeing with people who truly only want to point at one very small part?
666adt
Andrew Turnbull -3
"Necessary"?? That's as invalid a word as "should" when discussing other people's choices and decisions. To wit: I don't need you or anyone else to coach me on what's "necessary" for me, what I "should" or "shouldn't" do.

"Aviation is still a contributor" is opinion, not fact. Because it and other statements of its ilk are mere opinion, I will continue to fly as much as I want, not only as much as you or anyone else thinks I "should."
yr2012
matt jensen -7
Here we go again. One volcano blows off more CO2 in one day than all the aircraft in the world in one year.
SkyCaptain757
SkyCaptain757 10
Actually that’s not true at all. According to the USGS, volcanoes emit a mere 1% of total human CO2 emissions. If aviation is 3%, that means aviation emits 3 times as much as volcanoes.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

SkyCaptain757
SkyCaptain757 7
Seriously, why are you so mad? Obviously volcanoes are not human emissions. It was meant as volcanoes release only the equivalent of 1% of total human emissions. Ok, so we use your 2.5% aviation figure. That’s still 2.5 times as much as the equivalent volcanic emissions.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

SkyCaptain757
SkyCaptain757 15
I’m not going to dignify this sad, personal assault with any defense. Obviously you cannot discuss the ideas or issues without personally attacking a person you don’t even know. #YouNeedToCalmDown
paulgilpin1953
paul gilpin 3
this topic has nothing to do with the aviation industry.
this is about control.
the frankfurt school.
BDaleR
Byron Russell 0
Control, yes. Is the climate changing? Yes. Sea levels rising, average temperatures increasing, etc? Yes. Does recent human activity have much to do with it? That is a big maybe. Spend 15 minutes or so with this video to see how the data is being manipulated to gain control over our lives. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvrsA0XlYGg&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR1upyS_z67dDOGfiPb_70FVQKiCfAIPJuupZkHUdhjXyBNq1DPkLJBaoWM
richardorgill
Richard Orgill 3
Spot on
mutrock
Mark Kortum 3
Take a Catamaran next time. I hear the North Atlantic is beautiful this time of year.
bingoair
Markus Wolff 2
I'm going with the Founder of The Weather Channel, & he has said: "This climate change paranoia is a hoax" ; However, I think we owe it to the younger generation to clean up our act. We are dirty & wasteful, & we do need to be responsible, & I agree 100% with Lufthansa.
clarify
clarify 1
Because he has a degree in journalism? Because he did TV weather?
tongo
Dan Grelinger 0
And your asking because of your bias?
clarify
clarify 1
Yeah, I am biased towards science over other self-proclaimed experts. What are your biases?
tongo
Dan Grelinger 1
‘Climate science’ is not science. Science requires hypotheses to be proven before they can be accepted. Science requires not believing things that have not been proven scientifically. Science demands a skepticism of any theory that has not been proven.

Climate ‘science’ provides none of these, but instead relies on elements of religion to sway its converts. Consensus is one of those tools of religion being applied in the name of climate ‘science’. Why? Because proof cannot be provided. Demonization of the those asking for proof is also a hallmark of a religion. When there are no proven facts to back up the ‘end of the world’ doom that is being proselytized by the climate change alarmists, their only strategy is to abuse those who ask for proof. Open your mind. Ask the intelligent questions. You will find very little substance backing up the claims of disaster if we don’t doom the world to a tyranny intent on stopping human progress.
bingoair
Markus Wolff -1
75% of the scientist claiming man made climate change work has been review by 13% of scientist in antartica, none of these scientist agree. The guy from the weather channel has been involved in WATCHing & understanding weather for over 50 years. But all of don't matter, most of us are DUMB pilots, but a lot of us have a great BULLSHIT detector. The earth has always been heating & cooling i.e. ICE AGE, some say it was because of a super volcano that exploded & covered the earth with ash & blocked out the sun, others say God did it, flooded the whole earth. Who do we believe? How about the theory that a meteor hit us & caused all this dusk that blocked out sun. who knows? One thing is certain, when people in Florida hear of a super storm a coming, they never move their mobile homes.
Still waiting for the ice to melt & clean the streets of shit in Los Angeles & KSFO. What has happened is people have become brainwashed by paranoia.
lynx318
lynx318 2
Five islands in the Arctic ocean, never before recorded by man, released from permaice coverage. Polynesian islands slowly disappearing under water, needing evacuation, trying to blame a government that will pay for it. The real reason for denial, no-one wants to pay!
duane270
Duane Osman 2
what do all the plants on earth need to live
crk112
crk112 -1
He is absolutely right. Aviation is just a scapegoat here.

Climate change is another manufactured crisis by the left to justify taking away your rights through things like “green new deal”.
lynx318
lynx318 -9
Greta Fakeberg and her puppet masters, the question is, who really are they funded by?
hortod1
dj horton -2
Coward says whaaaat??
isababeM
isababe M -2
Lil Great is paid by Soros, didn't you know that? Climate change is a HOAX!
bidrec
Richard Haas -2
Aviation consumes fuel and generates pollution. Got it.

In 2016 the localities of all of the hubs and former hubs including those of FedEx, UPS and DHL went for Hillary Clinton with the exception of Phoenix (Maricopa County). Better than 95% of the EAS airports, which are all federally subsidized, went for Trump. As much as I deplore the burning of fossil fuels I would actually prefer that EAS subsidies be increased to bring the thinking of city and country people closer together--by making it cheaper to fly to a hub.

Accedi

Non hai un account? Registrati adesso (è gratis) per usufruire di funzioni personalizzate, allarmi voli e molto altro!