Will flying ever be sustainable? | BBC Ideas
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 мар 2024
- By 2050, airlines are expected to carry about 10 billion passengers on flights
Globally, just 1% of the population generate half of all emissions from the aviation sector.
But can the aviation industry ever be sustainable?
Subscribe here: bit.ly/1rbfUog
For more news, analysis and features visit: www.bbc.com/news
Video made in partnership with The Royal Society and @bbcideas.
#Emissions #Planes #BBCNews
Remember, it's YOUR fault flying is not sustainable... definitely not all the super rich taking their private jets out for a 15 minute flight
💯
Well in term of volume of passengers and quantity of fuel burnt... Yes I am afraid it is OUR fault too all flight goers. Rejecting the fault on one population is is not a way to evacuate your own culpability.
@@BatisteBieler I think the commenter is referencing the global elites, such as the WEF who turn up to their annual conference in Switzerland, all of them of course in their private jets to discuss "climate change"
@@BatisteBielerwell no, more passengers on one jet is far better than a single person on 1 jet. And I don't buy into this horsehit anyway, so I have zero culpability, zero guilt. I'll leave you to wallow in that.
I've noticed that there are a lot of these environmental stories on the BBC and the Guardian. Thinking about it, what do young left wing political activists do these days? They go to university and study journalism, where do they end up? The BBC and the Guardian.
You never get around to mentioning that aviation is responsible for only 2.5% of greenhouse gas emissions. Instead Ms Hewitt cites scary numbers with deceptive and meaningless context, comparing the combined total UK/DE emissions to the total aviation emissions.
I remember when BBC was a news organization.
Agreed. There is a lack of context in many of these news stories.
You do realise that it might only account for a very small amount of emissions, but at the same time only a tiny amount of the world's population travels by air at all. So if more people were to get into the fortunate position of affording a ticket, it's gonna account for a far greater proportion of emissions which is why we'll need to make it sustainable!
@@flyingdutchman3165 most of the world's population isn't rich enough to afford flying in long run, many don't even own passports. And with worsening economy and constant global issues many are avoiding travels. Many tourist destinations have been struggling since past few years. Do you use your noggin before making any claims?
@@personalemail9329 you do realise that the airline industry has been growing steadily every single year for decades (except for the pandemic years) and will continue to do so? So your point isn't valid at all. Also no need to make it personal, bud
@@personalemail9329"do you use your noggin before making claims?" Clearly you don't.
I wouldn’t be flying to France for instance if the train ticket wasn’t 4 fold the £30 EasyJet flight!
Yeah, tickets for trains and busses are way more expensive than they should be. The prices doesn't make sense.
Corporate trips are increasingly becoming a major contributing factors of the issues, where many of those trips are marginally necessary. The problem can’t be solved without talking about demand side of the coin.
Aviation contributes 2% of GHG emissions. If we got rid of that 2% it would be like a fart in the wind. While we should increase efficiency, it would be far more effective to target energy generation and the ground transport industry to reduce emissions which both combined are about 50% of emissions.
Completely agree, anyone that knows basic math can see that we should focus on the 80/20 of emissions to really make a change quickly. Airplanes is not one of the big contributors
True.. The largest contributor to carbon emissions by a long shot is electricity and home heating.. That's not to say we shouldn't discourage or cut down on flying though, especially domestically-in favour of trains and by making train travel cheaper... It's up to our governments to invest our tax dollars in this and force the the aviation industry to get on board with investing in alternative forms of transportation.
@@scottarchibaldmusicIt’s all BS dude. Stop believing the crap you’re told by bought and paid for Corporate scientist’s. The Earth is warming naturally as predicted by climate models
Yes, there are a lot of red herrings about in this climate change bs.
The problem with this argument is that almost all sectors individually contribute very little to carbon emissions, if you sufficiently split them out. CO2 from the production of plastics is small, from domestic heating is small, from the pork industry is small, from shipping is small, from concrete production is small...etc. So people can _always_ turn around a say 'well x only contributes a tiny amount to carbon emissions' but if we do that for _everything_ then we're screwed.
More specifically though, as the video explains, the problem with aviation is that there isn't an obvious fix. We _know_ how to electrify the grid and ground vehicles, and the world is moving that direction, especially how many renewable energy sources are significantly cheaper than fossil fuel alternatives. You say we should target those things - well we _are_ . We need to cut down on flights _as well_ . There isn't an obvious way that the aviation industry in its current form can adapt. Combined with rising demand, we should expect aviation emissions to grow, both proportionately and in absolute terms, in future. Aviation emissions also have a bad habit of escaping national accounting in any one state, and so it's harder to pressure governments to act on them.
There's also honestly a fairness problem. Cutting emissions in many areas is legitimately painful - it will likely mean higher energy costs and general inflation, which is going to disproportionately be harm those on low incomes, both globally and within developed countries. Relative to all those painful decisions, cutting down on flights is relatively painless. I don't really care if rich people can't take private jets or middle-class people can't jet off half way around the world to lie on a beach. Cutting down aviation emissions is low-hanging fruit.
The good thing is there’s been a very big effort in the industry for fuel efficiency and to find solutions but it’s just really hard. Good luck trying to ask people to fly less
You don’t ask, you ban. Which is what will happen unless you’re rich.
@@Mizzkan you can’t ban air travel. It’s politically and practically impossible. Air travel is the fastest and safest way to transport people and produces FAR less emissions than cars in total worldwide. In America especially, cars are the only way to reach planes. That you have to consider
@@vinchbagao I can tell you with absolute certainty you won’t be flying in 10 years time. The restrictions and compensations are already being drawn up and the airlines know it’s coming .
Hydrogen could be installed as completely new system of producing in amounts needed on burn to keep it safest as that combustion chamber the rest water with new engine maybe back to propellers.
There is other ways of moving airplanes, air vessels but it would be restructuring everything in making it work as flights accross oceans and like. Close to the same as now general but way future and maybe it's the future scene for now I see since it's year 2024 i'm in right now. Anyways Ai would help out in speedier decisions on designs in real effect to make it work. Not yet its still too new. Fueals need to be used still but maybe in certain sections in need of it and in between and like around with other ideas to make it flow with less way less fuels as now. Some day none of the Dino fuels at all:)
Flying will never be green unless some nice magical energy form is found.
Aliens did it lol but your right
The heart of modern day flying is the "energy density" problem.
But if people willing to go slow and less predictable with their exact arrival time, they could go with Airships or Sailboat as done for centuries.
Bingo! The only thing that has a better performance on the "by volume" and "by weight" chart is Litium Borohydride, and that stuff is as expensive as it is toxic. Nothing can beat hydrocarbons in today's world for aviation.
The only solution for decades is to fly MUCH less. Most flights are not essential anyway. Most emissions are by a small portion of the population anyway. A good start would be banning private jets.
Pilot here... Mostly agree with you. A lot of business travel could be replaced by Zoom ( or, an even more accurate remote presence technology ). NYC to Paris isn't going away anytime soon, but we could probably cut the number of daily flights considerably. And yes, cutting down on private jet flights is possible - not sure what percentage of aviation GHG is from private flying, though. I'd guess it's pretty small. But I'm okay with us making an example of the 1% 😇
If war and politicians are sustainable then flying is sustainable.
When the UK has stopped using coal and natural gas for heating and power we can tackle aviation.
Not sure that many in the U.K. use coal for heating. Hasn’t the last U.K. coal fired power station just closed. Isn’t about a third of the U.K. electricity coming from renewables ?
@@davecooper32389 coal fired stations still according to the national grid. Natural gas is the elephant in the room though, 40% of electricity production and untold millions of homes with gas fired boilers.
@@zapfanzapfan Looks like the National Grid is using out of date information. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_coal-fired_power_stations_in_the_United_Kingdom for the latest.
@@davecooper3238So, 2 GW coal capacity remaining, 28 GW gas to go...
@@zapfanzapfan But at least gas is a lot cleaner than coal. No Black Lung Disease, No toxic tailings ponds. Burning coal produces nitrous oxides potentially triggering acid rain. Gas is generally uses less energy to transport. At least it’s a move in the right direction. But hay ho l’m not perfect so I can’t expect the world to be.
Yes, as long as you're rich, famous & like to lecture others!
The issue with aviation is that, at least for the wide body high bypass turbines, the electric motor that would be required to give ample thrust and torque is simply not possible. Maybe by the end of the young generations lives, but not right now. By the time that happens we'll already be flying around via fusion rockets. Gas turbines are just too good.
No matter how many times we fly, flying commercially (not by private jet), the total emission is still smaller than China and India combined, and when we look into emission per passenger, it is even smaller and so insignificant compare to industrial emission. Individual flying commercial is not the problem. The real problem is big industries in certain countries still burning coal.
all the 2 faced stars flying around private jets
Complete nonsense.
I say, lets go back to sailboats and dirigibles!
The current emissions are lower than before, is that correct?
TL;DR We simply don't have the tech yet.
Cars still make up the majority of total transportation emissions with planes only making 2%.
In total transportation makes 17 percent of total transmissions, WHILE energy makes up 73 percent of emissions which is madness.
So the fact that y’all keep focusing on that 2% is insane to me. No one has even addressed the celebrities taking private jets around the world.
Y’all would rather focus on ur basic commoner 🤦🏾♂️.
We, the masses, are the problem to the controllers.
I do enjoy and cherish the enthusiasm and optimism.
It’s a very interesting topic. And applied to aviation, even more so.
i'll save on my carbon foot print and get a tooth brush for her
IDK, Ask the poloticians that use them like a personal vehicle
This video is a great example of why Google took away the thumbs down 👎
European train tickets need to come down in price and there needs to be a lot more investment in high-speed rail in North America, particularly in the United States. Air travel should be limited to travel requiring vast distances over oceans.
Remind me again. How many flew to COP28?
TRAINS are the best way to travel and really see the world. So what if the train takes longer than flying. Trains have better food and more amenities, plus wifi and power outlets for your devices. Simply sit back & relax, watch the scenery go by, and enjoy the journey.
trains don't have the best prices unfortunately
But railway stations are still uncomfortable and unpleasant places to spend waiting and transfer time
So float instead of fly... Airships with solar panels...
Dippping oceans for sea water for splitting for lift and/or engine fuel, and ballast of course.
The video dismisses electric propulsion without much elaboration. In fact, battery eVTOLs might have some helpful use cases, at least for short distances. And fuel cells are more energy dense than batteries, so electric planes with fuel cells are anear-term available technology that could replace a significant percentage of short haul and regional feeder flights. In principle, some existing planes could be retrofitted with fuel cells, so decarbonization of those planes could go faster than fleet replacement.
What about all this rocket launches and space race renaissance. Is anyone checking or trying to make eco friendly space travel
Of course it will !
How's Minovsky Craft?
Using biogas would make it sustainable
oh no it won't
There's an assumption within the question that flights aren't sustainable. Where did that idea come from?
The controllers
Lets all just stay in our 15 minute cities and eat the bugs.
Eat ZE bugs!
Sounds an good way to cut carbon emissions.
What is your definition of the sustainability? The fuel efficiency of an internal combustion car is around 7%. Do you have a guess for air plains? Tell me something that is sustainable.
Would be if the world got together and worked on a cleaner, synthetic, easy to mass produce fuel.
Wow 😮
Plane emissions are only a very slow percentage. Focus on ground transport instead.
So there are innovative companies attempting to change aircraft to fly using electric power instead of fuel.
1:44 did he invent winglets? Thought not
Dirigibles? With Photovoltaic powered electric thrust? ( if they figure that out) Of course this requires the cultural shift away from expectations of 1 day to anywhere and if i can afford to pay the freight i am entitled to generate the greenhouse gas everyone PAYS for. so....no at least not in time
The only way to do it is Sustainable Aviation Fuels and really synthesised fuels. These will always remain far more expensive than those distilled from the ground so taxes, subsidies or regulation is the only way to decarbonise the sector.
glideplanes wit a line to sea anchor on surface with adustable resistance so plane can stay up and lift up ...plane moving backvards nose into wind, strong winds better.
just stop those guys from taking private jets easy
Until green fuel / technology an alternative to fossil fuels is developed, people should opt to fly less inorder to reduce carbon emissions and lessen the burden on the environment.
I only have about 30 years left on this planet and I have no kids. I will fly where I want to, and your kids can deal with the consequences.
You like in a cave all you want….I’m enjoying my life while I can.
"No matter how highly mechanised and self-powered, fossil fuels extraction requires a number of people - as if the process is executed by hands using buckets and ropes - by physics.
Today, this number is 8 billion people - working flat out 24/7 - strong.
In any system of energy, Control is what consumes energy the most.
No energy store holds enough energy to extract an amount of energy equal to the total energy it stores.
No system of energy can deliver sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it.
This universal truth applies to all systems.
Energy, like time, flows from past to future” (2017).
First address the People in Davos flying in all on their private jets to the airport and then flying from the airport to the hotels with private helicopters
Girl I once knew used to travel hundreds of miles per helicopter to land on a super yacht to do aromatherapy for a Russian Oligarch's wife.
Have a Big Heart. It was a gift.
If airline companies continue to get greedier and continue to treat passengers like cattle-there won’t be an issue because no one will be flying any more.
I used to enjoy it.
Now I avoid flying at any cost. I’m not going to pay a company to treat me like crap. No thanks.
Greed kills.
Why not restrict flights to 20mph - like they do for cars in the UK, to reduce emissions?
You didn't pass physics in high school, did you?
@@Alex1891Just a little bit...
6:00 Missing out on seeing the world.
there is a solution: invest in faster sea travel
Hovercraft? How does that get me from Barnsley to Munich?
We should use big baloons inflated with helium
Going Hybrid is the way for now
OT: Benny Hill considered funnier than Monty Python by two TV stations --WOR and WLVI!
Not really surprised, Benny Hill is a more simple, childish kind of humor while Monty Python is often a parody of/commentary on social or political developments - and since that was made ever so long ago, it doesn't resonate as much anymore.
Didn't Rolls Royce estimate back in 2019 that civil aviation could be 'carbon neutral' by 2060??
No. Next question?
Straight from the WEF handbook
Airships are the only way round this problem at the moment. Really big ones. It was unfortunate that the Hindenburg disaster put us off this environmentally friendly mode of transport. Heavier than air transport is just a very inefficient way of staying aloft. And it's effect is probably far worse than you think. How can we be sure?
The only time air traffic stopped since the 70's was for three days after 9 11. It's hard to get accurate data (a cover up?) but as far as I can fathom the data shows that once the skies cleared an appreciable effect on global warming within a day was detected (within hours) and the reverse once normal traffic returned. It was only US airspace but it had a trully global effect.
For 50 years we've been constantly pumping co2 into the atmosphere from 10 kms up causing a thick blanket around the Earth which multiplies the effect several orders of magnitude EVERYWHERE as the greenhouse is substantially bigger due to the slow downward drift of co2 to the oceans where it is mostly absorbed.The few places where aircraft don't fly often are over Antarctica and the Himalayas. But it still spreads. And it's being constantly replenished.
Ground based co2 emissions have a far lesser effect on the climate as a whole, as the co2 molecule is relatively heavy and sinks downwards into the oceans. Urban heat islands and surface emissions don't cause a worldwide smothering blanket of co2 10 kms thick. When I drive out of the city into surrounding woodland the change is noticeable. So it was post 9 11.
We don't have accurate measurements at altitude but I am convinced that it is worse than the more localised effect of ground based emissions; co2 is a heavy molecule and so it takes a while to deplete downwards but it happened once. Only once.
Ocean temperatures are rising too partly because of this but also the influence of industry on rivers and coastal areas, like a radiator. Arctic ice is largely gone from the north coast of Russia precisely because most Russian rivers run north dumping all that heat from the heavy inefficient industries warming the water of the Ob, Lena and Yenisei rivers. That doesn't happen in Canada, Alaska and Greenland, but i believe that 50 years of uninterrupted air traffic has contributed far more to global warming.
I spend 2.500.000 liters last year …. 🙃
"fly less", "spend holidays domestically" ???
That would be the guarantee we don't get our issues fixed at all.
We can't save the planet without getting together and doing it together.
Only all people of the world aligning in peace behind that overarching, pressing, goal makes it feasible to achieve.
Furthermore it will only be to achieve, when the best talents in a free and open discourse develop the best solutions.
All that will not work with expanding isolationist, nationalistic, violent, suppressing autocracies.
These autocracies though - only find real support among that part of their societies, that does not have passports, that does not travel abroad, that does not have exchange and experiences with other cultures.
Only if many more of these people AND Mrs. Hewitt travel more, see more of the world and other places (and get out of their own bubbles there ...), only then we have a chance for understanding between different cultures, for peaceful co-existance, for sufficient openness and freedom, thereby for the fertile ground to get this planet saved.
Yes - it might very well be, that we allow aviation a special role and continued pollution but focus, even if less popular, much more on production, construction, heating and commuting.
Using bio fuels is really irresponsible. A total waste of land.
grown with petrochemical fertilisers
can we get safety right first please?
What about nuclear powered plains?
Sounds safe, a bunch of nuclear reactors flying around 🤦♂️
Can you sit between me and the reactor please...
Nuclear powered planes. It would be easier trying to make a steam train fly
Was tried in the 1950s and abandoned.
You go first
Flying only accounts for 3% of GHGs. The meat industry and concrete account for 40% collectively... Focus there first.
Planet earth is not dying!!
This comments section gives me hope for the little guy.
It’s sustainable already. There is enough fuel to sustain it for another 500 years if no advances in technology were ever made again. People confuse sustainability with their preferences of energy sources.
Make the Ticket price so expensive most people can't afford it, easy!
I’m for that, make travel classy again.
Already have
I can just tell you're an insecure little boy by your name and pfp lmao @@againstall4agsandtrans511
@@againstall4agsandtrans511 no look at spirit airlines.
If we have drones and EV vehicles now why not invent Ev planes as Well??
a start to sustainable airplanes is making it where boeing can actually build an airplane that doesn't immediately fall apart upon take off.
It is unlikely that mass transport via passenger jets will ever be sustainable. At the commuter end of aviation, electrically powered short range small aircraft are already flying. A massive increase in the energy density of batteries is required for much larger electric aircraft to built. That technology development may take many years, maybe decades which is outside the window of opportunity to limit the rise in temperature of the earth’s atmosphere. There is an assumption in this video that combustion based engines used for aviation can be used sustainably. Currently, combustion based aviation engines consume oxygen, fuel and produce a range of pollutants, with Co2 being one of them. Let’s see a more comprehensive explanation of the end to end fuel cycle of proposed “sustainable fuels”. How are all the pollutants managed including Co2?
They dont want you driving or travellling !
Dont no dont care.
Reduce city break holidays....
Just Say No for the WEF push for Electric Planes...Electric Cruise Ships, Electric Trains and Electric Space Ships...
of cos if you stop all unproductive flying including those holidays trip.
"Journalism"
In alshifa hospital in Gaza there is a great deal of Israel Zionism going on. Even pregnant women were tortured, children were killed, poor women were tortured and killed in front of their families. Open your eyes, community, may God save many. May God protect the innocent people of Israel
H2 maybe the answer
Thnx to small hats pets 😂
Fly higher?
Sure...when humans grow wings😂😂😂
Fuel is JatA1 that’s basically a kerosene which can be produced by sugar and is in many places.
Ironically it’s very common in many places. This sounds more like a lobby for a special product.
The experts also disparage hydrogen which can burn 🔥 in a jet turbine engine.
Lousy producer on this. Portly made and limited thinking. I wonder the sun set on British aviation.
I guess the solution is to stop making airplanes.
The world should learn to stop popularizing domestic flights, as well as driving. High Speed and frequent train travel is definitely the more efficient, green, and relaxing way to travel between cities.
Not really when you see that trains are almost empty most of the time. It is just a huge waste of tax dollars, space and time.
@@jimj2683 You just don’t see the potential. If you execute this well, and invest into making train services fast, comfortable, and reliable, I guarantee that you will have many people riding it. Much better use of space than car traffic on wide highways.
At first I thought "wait is the CIA lying again?" but then I realised "why would they they don't do it anymore..." - comment gets automatically deleted by YT.
Doesn’t matter what’s sustainable and what isn’t. This world isn’t the end of existence
As long as it isn’t during your lifetime, no need to do anything 🤦♀️
@@welshlady212000 Nope. Even if we were endlessly reincarnated on this planet, which we are not, there would be no real problem because humans have the ability to adapt, no matter what catastrophic events people conjure up when they can not yet comprehend a solutiob
@@michaelthomas6280 I don’t want to adapt, I want to thrive.
I don’t see how worrying about climate change and advocating government action to “fix” it is thriving, but do what you feel is best
@@michaelthomas6280 that’s okay you have a limited vocabulary and a limited understanding of anything further than under your own nose.
it's called soaring and sailplanes do it😅
I’m glad hardly anyone here believes this nonsense
2/3 of travel is for leisure
Over half the population of rich countries never fly.
About ninety percent of the world population never fly.
Rich countries will be least affected by global warming and have by far the largest per capita carbon foot print
Tropical countries which will be most affected by global warming. Yet the vast majority of the population of these countries never fly and have small per capita carbon foot prints.
There is no sustainable aviation. Aviation came about with fossil fuels and will disappear with fossil fuels.
If we ever do produce clean hydrogen in large quantities, that hydrogen should be used to de carbonize steel production which uses coal for iron ore reduction. Steel production accounts for 8% of global emissions. Steel is a vital need, leisure travel which concerns a small minority of the world population is not.
As for carbon capture, de carbonizing cement production will require massive carbon capture, as all known methods can only reduce half of cement production CO2 emissions which currently account for 7% of world CO2 emissions. Again, modern civilization can not function without cement production.
We need to stop woke climatists.
What report was that? Basically said don't fly, we can't make it sustainable
The best approach to this problem these days is to tax the airline industry heavily and smartly, so that those who fly more pay a lot more so we can get some money to invest in suck out the CO2 from the atmosphere.
Try again you muppet.
Suck co2 out of the atmosphere? Great idea except you'd kill all the life on the planet. Moron.
Call it a hunch - but, I don't believe we're going to make it to net zero.
Yes. Just stop using it or stop fighting each other and competing against each other. Start building together as a whole. Solar planet wide trains and more would come so easily? You could eventually do it with much sacrifice but as you are all too cursed with greed it will sadly never gonna happen. Humanity is not going to make it in this universe going this way, calling it now.
Nuclear plane?
That was tried in the 1950s. Better use nuclear power on the ground to make synthetic fuel.
In short, we know it's the top 1% who are causing all the damage and we don't have viable alternative, so no more cheap holiday flights for you lot 👍
*Oh cute, we’re still on the “co2 levels 🟰 global warming” even though this has been disproven over and over? Welcome to 2024 BBC 🤣*
Wtf?
Actually, over the last 60 years there has been more and more evidence that increasing CO2 levels are significantly contributing to global warming that far outweighs the number of counter arguments.