Up in the Air, Not So Much?
Very interesting article at The New Republic about the possibility that air travel – and air freight – might be getting a whole lot more expensive over the next several years. The basic thrust (hah!) is that air flight requires enormous amounts of fuel, and there’s no equivalent of the Prius or the electric car coming down the pike any time soon. So rising oil costs are really throwing the aviation industry for a loop. The article’s a worthwhile read for the thoughts about the future, but also as a reminder of what our current lifestyle requires to sustain it. For example:
Air freight now plays a huge role globally, carrying, for instance, one-third of the value of all U.S. imports. And the system relies heavily on cheap fuel: Every night, FedEx keeps a number of empty planes up in the air, to better respond to requests at a moment’s notice.
There is something hugely scary to me about the idea that we would just leave a bunch of planes up in the air, burning fuel, for the sake of convenience. And I’m sure I make a host of similar decisions on a much smaller scale every day, like when I leave my PC on during the day or fire up a charcoal grill or order something from Amazon that’s gonna wind up getting split into who knows how many shipments. I’m trying to make as many little changes as I can to be less wasteful . . . but I still feel like the world’s getting ready to force us to make some big changes.
About Dave Thomer
Born and raised in Philadelphia. Studied philosophy at Fordham University in the Bronx, where I made many great friends and met my wonderful wife. We moved back to Philadelphia, where I studied philosophy some more and became a teacher. Online and off, I'm looking for ways that we can be better citizens and build stronger communities.
Monday, August 18th 2008 at 12:35 am |
I believe that the scapegoating of air travel as wasteful is way overdone. By my back-of-the-envelope, a person flying in a 747 burns only one-quarter to one-half as much fuel as they would driving the same distance alone in a typical car at freeway speeds.
Some reasons this is so:
(1) Aerodynamic efficiency is a top priority in airplane design. In car design, aerodynamics are a so-so priority, often compromised for other concerns including aesthetic styling.
(2) Airlines do their level best to fly with full airplanes. Almost every car on the road has only a single person in it.
(3) Cars have to overcome rolling resistance going over the ground. It’s not clear to me that contact with the ground is a net benefit at high speeds.
(4) Airplanes don’t legally have to be built sturdy enough to survive head-on collisions with other airplanes.
Wednesday, August 20th 2008 at 12:28 am |
I have nowhere near the physics or the math skills to argue with the back of your envelope, although I would have to think that moving at several hundred MPH goes against some of the advantages you cite. But even if it uses less fuel to go a certain distance than it would by car, there’s still the question of, Is it a good idea to travel this distance? Is a lifestyle that depends on lots of airplanes – not just passenger planes, but shipping planes like those empty FedEx planes cited in the New Republic piece – sustainable?
Saturday, August 23rd 2008 at 9:25 pm |
I did quite a lot of traveling this year. The great majority of it could have been replaced by some form of teleconference. However, it doesn’t seem to work that way. You show up somewhere, people give you coffee and donuts, you talk for a couple of hours, and *then* they agree to send you the Powerpoint slides that they could have emailed to you in the first place. It’s stupid, but there it is.
Tuesday, August 26th 2008 at 11:29 am |
And that’s not even factoring in the energy cost to produce and transport the donuts and coffee.
I admit, I’m pretty bad at talking to people over the phone. But if the alternative is a bunch of travel hassle, I think I could get over it. If the price of air travel keeps going up, I’m sure I could.