Wealthy people with environmental ideals are the biggest emitters

[Ed_]

12 hours ago, JohnMo said:

Why? Required, or choose to?

I think my point is that the amount of work flying someone does is less likely to be affected by their environmental ideals than their personal flying. 

 

For example a company CEO could choose to never fly for personal reasons but is unlikely to be able to do the same regarding work travel regardless of their personal beliefs, so not considering this distinction introduces a source of bias into the analysis.

[saveasteading]

5 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

How many were on the bus.

Average 8? Probably 20 used it in total.

 

5 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

bus does about 6MPG, 

It was going that way anyway. So close to zero fuel used for us.

In term time it would have been packed.

 

It is possible some of those people don't have a car and were coming back from hospital. 

1 hour ago, ProDave said:

Solve the local link, e.g with affordable (subsidised) electric taxi'

Exactly. One solution is that your local community has a vehicle and volunteer drivers plus a free parking agreement at the bus stop.

[saveasteading]

5 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

How many were on the bus.

Average 8? Probably 20 used it in total.

 

5 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

bus does about 6MPG, 

It was going that way anyway. So close to zero fuel used for us.

In term time it would have been packed.

 

It is possible some of those people don't have a car and were coming back from hospital. 

1 hour ago, ProDave said:

Solve the local link, e.g with affordable (subsidised) electric taxi'

Exactly. One solution is that your local community has a vehicle and volunteer drivers plus a free parking agreement at the bus stop.

Stand as a local councillor and you can do this using the huge fund that the wind turbine people will give you.

[Gone West]

We have a bus run through the village three days of the week, once in the morning and returning in the afternoon. Without huge subsidy there is no way public transport could be used for even a fraction of the journeys made locally. Most people live in urban areas and don't have a clue what public transport is like in the countryside.

[SteamyTea]

29 minutes ago, Gone West said:

Without huge subsidy there is no way public transport could be used for even a fraction of the journeys made locally

We have huge subsidies.

https://www.cornwall.gov.uk/transport-parking-and-streets/public-transport/cornwalls-transport-services/enhanced-partnership-and-bus-service-improvement-plan/

 

A new allocation of £10.59m Bus Grant funding for 2025/26 has been awarded to Cornwall Council.  This includes:      

• £9.72m BSIP funding - £5.48m revenue funding will be focused on maintaining the existing bus network. £4.24m capital funding will improve access and deliver upgrades to:
  • bus stations
  • bus stops and
  • real-time passenger information screens
• £0.87m funding to include: Bus Services Operators Grant (BSOG) to support tendered bus services.  As well as an allocation to support BSIP delivery.

 

About £17 quid each.

They may be spending the money on the wrong things.

 

[Gone West]

4 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

They may be spending the money on the wrong things.

 

Well, half on maintenance of existing bus services, half on upgrading bus stops and stations. So at least we shouldn't lose services, but I can't see services being expanded. It would need a lot more than £10m for a rural county like Cornwall.

[Beelbeebub]

Whilst air travel does ha e a carbon footprint it also has massive benefits. 

 

Without it intercontinental travel, especially between the America's, Australia and africa/europe/Asia would become almost impossible for the average person. It would become the preserve of the ultra rich who could afford to take 2 weeks or more to travel each way. 

 

I would point out that the carbon emissions of uk domestic and international air travel (I know attributing carbon to a territory is tough but there are various estimates) is around 40MtCO2e

 

The emissions from passenger cars is about 60MtCO2e and residential heating is about 50MtCO2e

 

So we could decarbonise (electrify) passenger cars and heating (Ev's and heatpumps) and carry on flying. 

[JohnMo]

2 hours ago, Beelbeebub said:

Whilst air travel does ha e a carbon footprint it also has massive benefits. 

 

Without it intercontinental travel, especially between the America's, Australia and africa/europe/Asia would become almost impossible for the average person. It would become the preserve of the ultra rich who could afford to take 2 weeks or more to travel each way. 

 

I would point out that the carbon emissions of uk domestic and international air travel (I know attributing carbon to a territory is tough but there are various estimates) is around 40MtCO2e

 

The emissions from passenger cars is about 60MtCO2e and residential heating is about 50MtCO2e

 

So we could decarbonise (electrify) passenger cars and heating (Ev's and heatpumps) and carry on flying. 

Do find this very much goes against everything you seem to preach. It may have massive benefit for ease of travel, but is this travel really needed or just a nice to have?

 

 

[Beelbeebub]

5 hours ago, JohnMo said:

Do find this very much goes against everything you seem to preach. It may have massive benefit for ease of travel, but is this travel really needed or just a nice to have?

Ha! I can see why you might think that but I'm not a carbon zelot. 

 

Being able to move things, including people from one side of that globe to the other in under 24h is a huge benefit. 

 

We should be minimising flying where possible. Eg, sub 500 mile (to pick an approximate distance) flights should be replaced with rail, business meetings that could be done remotely should be done remotely.

 

But I would rather we saved carbon by moving to EVs and heatpumps and continue flying (albeit maybe at a slightly lower rate) rather than cut flying so we can drive ICE cars and use gas boilers. 

 

And we would save *much* more carbon by doing those things (and improve energy security) than by stopping flying all together. 

[Iceverge]

Commercial flying is mass transport and ballpark similar to an ICE car with one person on board in terms of CO2/Km . 

 

It's just that someone rarely drives the equivalent distances. 

 

You could probably half CO2 of airliners by having a large and much slower turboprop aircraft but the idea of taking 24hrs in an economy seat to get to New York won't make you many friend's among the travelling public.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JohnMo]

1 hour ago, Beelbeebub said:

Being able to move things, including people from one side of that globe to the other in under 24h is a huge benefit. 

Yes we can get fresh fruit from the other side of the world out of season, we can go ongoing haul holiday's - is any of this good for the environment - no. But sounds like you want to keep your holidays and who cares.

 

Sorry me swooping to ASHP may have a good impact on the environment - but it's super small impact. Insignificant compared to even starting a gas turbine let alone dragging 540 Tonnes of A380 into the sky. The aircraft can do about 80 to 90 miles per US gallon per person. Which any diesel car can do with 2 people in it and double that with 4 people in it.

Edited yesterday at 18:39 by JohnMo

[SteamyTea]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft

 

An Airbus 380 on a long haul flight uses 3.27 l/100 km (86.39 British MPG)

 

I went to Australia and back in a 747-400, that does 3.76 l/100km, which is 75 MPG.  That is about the same as my car does on an upcountry run, though it does around 10 MPG less locally.

The route I took to Sydney was via San Francisco, and the route back was via Kuala Lumpur, a total of 23,458 miles or 37,752 km.  That works out at 1,420 litre of fuel.

That flight was for work, and was, nearly 25 years ago (where has my life vanished, I booked the flight just after 911 and got it for $400.  I also got bumped off the flight, got my $400 back and an upgrade to 1^st Class to KL and then Business Class to Heathrow).

Since then, I have probably driven 625,000 miles in various cars, the worse on economy was my little Corsa Automatic, it struggled to do 40 MPG (and was a lot worse around London), but all the other have easily done 50 MPG.  So about 2270 lt/year, which is 5.6 l/100km.

Should have stayed in Australia.

[JohnMo]

7 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

An Airbus 380 on a long haul flight uses 3.27 l/100 km (86.39 British MPG)

 

I went to Australia and back in a 747-400, that does 3.76 l/100km, which is 75 MPG.  That is about the same as my car does on an upcountry run, though it does around 10 MPG less locally.

The route I took to Sydney was via San Francisco, and the route back was via Kuala Lumpur, a total of 23,458 miles or 37,752 km.  That works out at 1,420 litre of fuel.

Sorry you are very wrong - you forgot that consumption is per person based on being full of passengers. A 747 holds between 182,000 to 240,000 litres, based on your fuel economy that one hell of a lot miles it could do. 

[SteamyTea]

21 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

you forgot that consumption is per person based on being full of passengers

Based on consumption per revenue passenger kilometre.

Read the Wikipedia article.

 

 

Edited 22 hours ago by SteamyTea

[JohnMo]

4 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

Based on consumption per revenue passenger kilometre.

Read the Wikipedia article.

 

 

Did read.

 

So your calculations are still wrong. It still uses almost the same quantity of fuel for 1 person or a few hundred. I've been on business only flights from Singapore to Houston and there were 12 fare paying passengers - so the maths don't make much sense.

 

My car car does 20 mpg, but with 5 people in it, does it all of a sudden do 100mpg. No it still does 20mpg. 

 

Strange way to say I like long haul flights and here is my justification. Aircraft use a shit load of fuel, putting the emissions where they do the least good.

 

I have done way more than my fair share of trips around the world, doesn't make good or sensible anymore.

 

[Beelbeebub]

12 hours ago, JohnMo said:

Yes we can get fresh fruit from the other side of the world out of season, we can go ongoing haul holiday's - is any of this good for the environment - no. But sounds like you want to keep your holidays and who cares.

I rarely fly, maybe 3x in the last decade, though I have flown to NZ once and the US a few times in my younger days. 

 

Incidentally my NZ trip took 24h all in.  My grandfather visited NZ before the war to study farming techniques and other things. He went by boat. It took over a month. 

 

Without air travel International travel woill essentially become impossible for everyone but the super wealthy. 

 

12 hours ago, JohnMo said:

Sorry me swooping to ASHP may have a good impact on the environment - but it's super small impact. Insignificant compared to even starting a gas turbine let alone dragging 540 Tonnes of A380 into the sky. The aircraft can do about 80 to 90 miles per US gallon per person. Which any diesel car can do with 2 people in it and double that with 4 people in it.

If you focus on individual actions everything looks pointless. This is a variation on "the UK is 1% of emissions so why should we do anything". 

 

Say we wanted to cut our co2 emissions as a nation by 25%.

 

We could totally ban flying. Nothing leaves the ground. No travel for business or pleasure. No fast cargo of goods. Nothing

 

Can you imagine the public backlash. Holidays abroad, trips to visit friends and families, school exchange trips, sports tours, sports tournaments, academic conferences, specialist consultancy, music and arts tours etc all gone. 

 

And we would still need to do something else to reach the target. 

 

 

Or 

 

We could insulate our homes and swap to heatpumps. We would end up with warmer, cheaper to run homes that are less dependant on foreign fuels and easily meet our target. 

 

Or we could phase in EVs (and more rail) and have cleaner air in our cities, less noise pollution and also easily exceed our target 

 

Focusing first on air travel is like religiously turning off your TV at the wall each night to save energy whilst not insulating your loft. 

[Beelbeebub]

The average uk house with a gas boiler emiits 4-5t co2e a year. 

 

A full transatlantic return flight is about 650kg per person. 

 

So say 2 people and allow for lower average occupancy maybe 1t per person so 2t for your trip (4t if a family) 

 

You could swap to a HP, take your family on a trip to NY, and still be (a bit) lower carbon than staying at home and keeping your gas boiler. If you had an EV as well, you'd be well ahead. 

[ToughButterCup]

On 05/06/2026 at 14:35, SteamyTea said:

Among people of high socioeconomic status, love for nature corresponds with a bigger environmental footprint – and there's an obvious reason why

By Alec Luhn

27 May 2026

...

People who care the most about the environment also do the most environmental damage with their jet-setting lifestyle, at least among those with the highest income and education.

...

 

Statistical illiteracy  writ large. 

 

Still, it got us to read the article.   Instead, read  How to Lie with Statistics by Darrell Huff . Its been in print since the 1950s. Penguin Books is the publisher

[SteamyTea]

1 hour ago, ToughButterCup said:

How to Lie with Statistics

How_to_Lie_with_Statistics_-_Darrell_Huff.pdf

[JohnMo]

2 hours ago, Beelbeebub said:

 

A full transatlantic return flight is about 650kg per person

But these emissions and others are in a worse place at high altitude, so in effect 3x times as bad as ground based pollutants. So now you have jumped to 2 Tonnes.

 

2 hours ago, Beelbeebub said:

average uk house with a gas boiler emiits 4-5t co2e a year. 

I read 2.2, so we have different sources. But 4 in the family home is equal to 500kg if your playing the per person game.

 

But for me one transatlantic flight per person is same as heating by gas for a year per person, but high altitude emissions are 3x as bad for the environment.

[Beelbeebub]

5 hours ago, JohnMo said:

But these emissions and others are in a worse place at high altitude, so in effect 3x times as bad as ground based pollutants. So now you have jumped to 2 Tonnes.

You can play all sorts of tunes with the statistics - do you count methane leaks in that gas heating stats? What exactly is the average uk house? How much worse are high altitude emissions? How do you attribute international flights? Etc. 

 

But the co2 emissions from flying are several times less than those from gas heating or private vehicles.  Even if you 3x them to account for the altitude flying is only equal to one of those other items (in round numbers) 

 

We can definitely replace the majority of heating emissions now, today, with proven tech you can literally buy off the shelf. 

 

Likewise, we can replace the majority of cars on the road with EV equivalents that are availible today.

 

There would be no major change to lifestyles or functionality. People would still have warm homes and still be able to drive about. 

 

(obviously both of those sectors will see a gradual phase out due to the relatively long life cycles of cars and boilers)

 

But there is no currently available way to replicate the functionality of air travel without carbon emissions.  Maybe one day there will be (fingers crossed). If there was I would 100% support swapping to that ASAP, in the same way I support EVs and HPs. 

 

But until then, I think we should focus on tackling the two sectors that are

 

- much bigger than aviation

- much easier

- result in minimal disruption to people's lives.

 

Otherwise we will alienate the public even more. The right wing press already bang on about "Greta stealing your holidays" or some such bollocks whenever any free taxes are applied to air travel.  Imagine what would happen if we actually tried to ban air travel. 

 

 

 

[JohnMo]

19 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

exactly is the average uk house

The average, not the worst or best the average. Pretty simple.

 

20 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

How much worse are high altitude emissions?

Look it up, plenty of info out there, but approx 3x worse.

 

21 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

we can replace the majority of cars on the road with EV equivalents

in theory, if we generate enough electricity and we don't, and people can afford it.

 

21 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

would 100% support swapping to that ASAP,

No issue with that, have voted with my own feet and my own money (no grant money taken).Now getting cheaper bill because of it (a lot cheaper).

 

But again we needs lots of electric generation. Scotland way further ahead than the rest of the UK.

 

All I am saying is aviation isn't great. But to keep flying, you may need to open the oil and gas pipe line again - which you are opposed too. You can't have everything.

[Russdl]

45 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

But there is no currently available way to replicate the functionality of air travel without carbon emissions.  Maybe one day there will be (fingers crossed).

Fingers crossed that the AirLander makes it into production and ultimately zero emissions air travel comes to pass (probably not the easiest way to

get to Oz though!)
 

https://www.hybridairvehicles.com/news/overview/news/zeroavia-and-hav-sign-agreement-to-collaborate-on-zero-emission-airlander/

[Beelbeebub]

55 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

All I am saying is aviation isn't great. But to keep flying, you may need to open the oil and gas pipe line again - which you are opposed too. You can't have everything.

No it isn't - but I would put it lower down the list of priorities than the other two items. 

 

Those are bigger bang for your (political capital) buck. If we reduce demand for oil (and gas) from road transport there will be more oil available for things like flying. 

 

I'm not in the same camp as "just stop oil" - we will need to extract oil for the foreseeable future for chemicals and things where the intra high energy density is critical (mainly aviation, but also some critical "off grid" applications).

 

I just think we should stop burning oil (gas) if we don't have to. 

 

Cars and HPs do need more generation and there are some swapping costs (though less if you just replace with electric at the end of normal life) - but again these are problems we have known "mature" solutions to. They are, in tech nerd speak, technology readiness level 9 "actual system proven in operational environment" 

 

Low carbon long haul aviation is TRL 4 at best with short haul at maybe 7 (there are some electric float planes operating in Canada for example) 

 

Absent some massive break though in creating hydrocarbons from electricity, water and co2 (which would also solve a whole bunch of other problems) aviation will be tied to fossil fuels for a while yet. 

[Beelbeebub]

46 minutes ago, Russdl said:

Fingers crossed that the AirLander makes it into production and ultimately zero emissions air travel comes to pass (probably not the easiest way to

get to Oz though!)

I love airships but I don't think they are the answer apart from some very niche uses. 

 

The biggest issue is the slow speeds mean long cycle times.  A 737 can cycle back and forth between London and Rome 4 or 5 times a day, so it's capital and operational costs can be split over many passengers.

 

But the airship might do one leg, maybe a return with fewer people and the capital and operational costs would be similar if not greater than a 737.

 

They do look cool though.