Has anyone out there thought about all that air traffic hurting the planet?

Answer 1

Yes, in fact there was some interesting data gathered during the days after September 11, 2001 when all air traffic was shut down. It seems the average temeperature in the United States was something like a degree or two cooler than normal without all the contrails keeping the heat trapped in.

Answer 2

There are a great many things that contribute to global warming and climate change - air traffic is just one of the many.

All told it's responsible for about 1½% of global warming, which is probably a smaller amount than is often implied given the amount of attention that is focussed on air traffic. This figure includes not only passenger flights but commercial and military ones as well, I guess the figure for passenger flights would be closer to the 1% mark.

So yes, air traffic does play it's part in global warming but by comparison to other factors it's a small part. For example, the chemical industry contrinbutes 3 times as much, deforestation 11 times as much, road traffic 6 times as much and the greatest contributor of all - power generation contributes 15 times as much.

Answer 3

Yes. Duh! Not a week goes by without someone asking about it in this forum. But is really is a negligible part of all the pollution because people travel by air hundreds of times less often than they do by car. Air traffic is really small compared to all traffic. If you stopped all air travel right now, there would be no noticeable improvement in the environment. It might even make global warming worse to stop it because contrails kind of artificial clouds and may cool the planet.

Answer 4

It's easy to get diverted by less important things when thinking about global warming. You _have_ to look at the data.

The important things are cars, power plants, and heating and cooling houses and factories. There are a whole lot of those.

There are relatively few airplanes. Which is good. Air travel may be the last place we use fossil fuel, there is no good substitute now or in the near future.

Answer 5

Not people who understand the technology. Aircraft use a lot of fuel--but actually, for the distance that jets carry people, the don't use much more fuel than needed to travel teh same distance by car.

Further--that's current aircraft. The aviation industry is in the lead in developing more fuel efficient systems. The newest generation of jets--e.g. the Boeing 787--are 20% more fuel efficient. And het engines are much cleaner than other types of engines anyway.

Answer 6

You need to ask that question to Al Gore. He talks about saving the planet but he uses a private jet to fly around in. When people like Al practice what they preach I might follow them but for now they're hypocrits

Answer 7

Jet fuel burns cleaner and hotter than automotive fuels like gasoline and diesel, house hold fuels like kerosene and propane, and commercial fuels like coal.

A perfect mixture of air and fuel is why the exhaust is nearly clear. That's also why airports don't smell like bus stops, truck stops, or shipping yards.

Jet fuel emissions makes "Willy Bio-Fuel" look like leaded gasoline from the 60's.

Answer 8

air travel accounts for 2% of all human CO2 emissions, which in turn accounts for 0.07% of all planetary CO2 emissions, which in turn accounts for 0.002% of the greenhouse effect.

the water vapour from the jet turbines is actually much more significant.

Answer 9

Yes. New jets are more fuel efficient and produce less carbon emmissions... or so they say.

Answer 10

I have never though about it but now since you mentioned it, we should give it a thought. Interesting question though!!!!! I starred it! :D