Will air travel survive....

[Gordon]

Currantly as I read the newspapers and watch news reports on TV, we see that more and more people and becoming truly aware of what the global impact on the enviroment that flying actually contributes global warming via high level of carbon emmissions.

There are a number of people looking at travelling to Europe (I live in the UK), by using trains and buses rather than flying. (One instance of a woman travelling to Austrailia, because she was so concerned about it, via these methods, ...it took her 2 months to do it)

We all know of the impact of the enviorments, melting ice caps, rising oceans, whole pacific island communities disappearing and being washed away fishing lakes and oceans being depleted because of our Western indulgance lifestyle.

I am looking to buy a hybrid car because of my concerns. Mid 2006 six, we are buying a lot more organically produced food. Even to the extent of trying to source, locally produced foods, so that we know it didn't come on an aeroplane or large lorries to get to us.

Maybe I as I am now a father, I want to make sure that my son has a planet that will still be here. Ironically I want him to enjoy travelling too, but sensibly.

So my question to the forum, do you think we will change our way or finding food from around the world, will we travel by air less and less becuase of carbon emmissions....(or will cheap air fare be a thing of the past).....can airline either survive or even change?

Gordon

[Baltar]

I think the ultimate solution is finding alternate energy sources that don't generate greenhouse gases and pollution, not driving or flying less. You do have to keep in mind though that humans aren't responsible for all the greenhouse gases that are released. Although in the last 50 years or so, we did release quite a lot into the atmosphere. However from what I've read, about 25% of greenhouse gas increases caused by humans are attributed to deforestation, so it's not just fossil fuel burning.

If we reversed that trend and started to increase the number of trees in the world, we'd be removing a lot more CO2 from the air than is being removed right now. I remember reading that since the arrival of Europeans in the US, about 20-30% of US forest has been destroyed. Rainforests once covered 14% of the surface of the planet, reduced to just 6% today.

I think as a species we're perfectly capable of cleaning up the planet and finding a renewable non-polluting source of energy. We're also just as capable of screwing up the planet completely, and so far we've been doing a pretty good job at that. Unfortunately right now we're busy fighting over non-renewable fossil fuel *cough* war in Iraq *cough* when we should be trying to come up with an alternative to it.

[Mayo]

Airlines will be the heart beat for centuries to come, one way or another.. We could get energy through Zero-Point(energy from vacum) technology, but for now that is far fetched future.

[Baltar]

The best, cleanest, most effective source of energy is antimatter. Matter-antimatter reactions result in 100% of the matter and antimatter used turning into energy, with no pollution. Right now we're very far from being able to use antimatter in any practical way, but who knows what we'll be able to do a few hundred years from now. The potential of antimatter as a fuel is staggering.

In antimatter-matter collisions resulting in photon emission, the entire rest mass of the particles is converted to kinetic energy. The energy per unit mass is about 10 orders of magnitude greater than chemical energy, and about 2 orders of magnitude greater than nuclear energy that can be liberated today using nuclear fission or fusion. The reaction of 1 kg of antimatter with 1 kg of matter would produce 1.8×1017 J (180 petajoules) of energy (by the equation E=mc²).

This is about 134 times as much energy as is obtained by nuclear fusion of the same mass of hydrogen (fusion of 1H to 4He produces about 7 MeV per nucleon, or 1.3×1015 J for 2 kg of hydrogen). This amount of energy would be released by burning 5.6 billion liters (1.5 billion US gallons) of gasoline (the combustion of one liter of gasoline in oxygen produces 3.2×107 J), or by detonating 43 million tonnes of TNT (at 4.2×106 J/kg).

[openeyes]

I'll be taking airplanes until something faster/more interesting comes along, and recommend flying first class whenever possible, it makes a huge difference in enjoyment, and in a frequent flyer program it needn't be too expensive. Private flying is also an interesting option, though I haven't done much of that yet.

I'm very much looking forward to scram jets (mach 10+ speeds) in a few decades, and I love the idea of converting a dynalifter airship into a home to continually tour the world in (one can always dream).

One of my plans for the next few years is to get my private pilot's license. But if/when teleportation is widely available I'll consider switching to that for most of my transportation needs

One thing that motivates me to make significant amounts of money is to be able to help fund technological development in areas that interest me, and cleaner, faster transportation would certainly be one of those.

[trekr5]

Cutting travel by aeroplanes will just not work..it's completely impractical and no one is interested. The world has truly become a global village with lots of interlinking economies. If everyone stopped flying the global financial consequences would be dire. - read Thomas Friedman's "The World is Flat"

The Chief Investment Officer of Citibank, in an interview, said that the climate change impetus trickles down in the following order: Govt( alot of rhetoric because of votes)->Corporate (investment opportunity)->Consumer (not interested)however, he recommends it as a huge investment opportunity for his clients.
Technology is the only way to solve the climate change problem. It will be very difficult to modify people's behaviour, through legislation or air taxes, and i doubt if there is a politician that will be brave enough to attempt it (as stated by Tony Blair).

[bgmark13]

if only they had solar powered boats...

[Thomas Jensen]

I'm sorry guys, but there is just no evidence that CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming.

The most important thing so far, in this whole argument, is PROVING that CO2 is a problem is the first place. Nobody has done that yet. All we have is a bunch of lying politicians using the environment as an excuse to raise taxes. The media goes along with it, mainly out of laziness.

Why should we go back to living in the Middle Ages because some lying politician says so?

Air travel is fantastic.

As for the need for cleaner fuel...as opposed to burning coal etc...well of course, that is desirable. But don't confuse basic environmental progress with all this CO2 propaganda. There's simply no evidence supporting the claims.

[Brutha]

Originally Posted by bgmark13

if only they had solar powered boats...

At least they have Wind powered boats.