Originally Posted by
deltabound
Environmentalism is the newest crazy religion. If you really subscribe to it, and you probably do, then you need to stop flying immediately. Anthropogenic climate change believers who finger "carbon emissions" have no business burning HUGE quantities of fuel and dumping massive amounts of carbon into the air. If this is your belief, then your job is directly contributing to the eventual death and displacement of tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people.
How can you sleep at night?
Bull Feces. You're laying it all on the pilots but aren't considering that we wouldn't have a job if it wasn't for the payload. Technically, it's the customers' carbon footprint. Any participation in society as a consumer has an overall impact on the environment and
it is up to each one of us to minimize our impact through our individual conduct as well as through our vote. Being a professional pilot is not in contradiction to being environmentally conscious. It's a job and our infrastructure demands air travel.
Yes, airplane carbon emissions are substantial. However, it is more efficient to fly 300 people from coast to coast than to divide those people in enough Ford Explorers to make the trip
Rough estimate of fuel burned by a 767-300 (configured for 270 pax) on a transcon;
80,000 lbs /6.72 = 11905 gallons.
Enough Ford Explorers to carry 270 people/roughly 4 per vehicle = 68
Approximate hwy mileage on a Ford Explorer 16 (considering stops, the actual average would be much lower so 16 mpg is liberal estimate in your favor)
New York to Los Angeles road miles 2800
2800/16mpg = 175 gallons X 68 Explorers = 11900 gallons
TOTAL GALLONS OF FUEL
By Explorer 11900
By 767 11905
One must also factor in the impact of multi day travel.
40 hours of driving/ 8 hours per day = 5 days
transcon in a 767, less than 5 hours
Also, I believe that Jet A burns cleaner than gasoline
I sleep fine at night.