UKC

So whats everyone's guess?
At the moment it seems with competition and no imminent fuel crisis on the horizon that it is incredibly cheap to travel thousands of miles but how long will it last.
I'm planning some big trips over the next few years( yosemite, new zealand and oman)
Is it gonna get really expensive or stay cheap?

In reply to misterb:

Many have predicted this for decades but hasn't happened yet.

In reply to misterb:

While price will inevitably fluctuate, its seems it is unlikely to move out of reach of the average wage earner otherwise surely they would stop making money as there biggest market would disappear.

I might be completely wrong on that, but it seems to stack up to me.

In reply to misterb:

International Travel From Bristol is already too Expensive. over 6 quid to cross the severn bridge!

In reply to misterb:

Too unjustifiably expensive for me right now and its wrecking the planet.

In reply to misterb:

What imminent fuel crisis?

In reply to Offwidth:


I think that was the O.P.'s point.

In reply to The Pylon King:

>...and its wrecking the planet.

So is the internet:

Google produces 1.5m tonnes of CO2 per year, and it is estimated that the internet produces 300m tonnes of CO2 per year.

(The Guardian 2010 and 2011).

In reply to The Pylon King:


Much less so than domestic travel and industry. Also probably the cheapest way to travel per mile travelled.

In reply to Martin1978:

It would be interesting to find out if anyone has tried to work out how much CO2 the internet has 'saved' by existing - less snail mail required due to email, information more accessible so less books/more trees, more centralised goods delivery/less need for everyone to go to town for shopping, fewer porn dvds needed etc.

In reply to dsh:


Without qualification, that could mean pretty much anything. Reckoned by total emissions, or per person per trip, or per mile travelled? Source for the information?

In reply to bpmclimb:

Long-haul flight emissions are ~ 70g/km/person for a full flight
Typical car emissions are ~ 140g/km

So which is worse depends on the number of people in the car, how far the flight going and whether all the seats are taken. They are, at least, of similar order and one could certainly argue that a singly occupied car is worse than a full long-haul flight.

Sources:
http://www.carpages.co.uk/co2/
http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/downloads/jardine09-carboninflights...

In reply to psaunders:

Thanks for the info. Quite surprising.

In reply to psaunders:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has estimated that aviation’s total climate impact is some 2-4 times that of its direct CO2 emissions alone (Source:Wikipedia)

A fully laden A380, according to its’ engine maker Rolls Royce, uses as much energy as 3,500 family cars, equivalent to six cars for each passenger. (Economist. “Aircraft Emissions. The Sky’s the Limit.” June 8, 2006).

Statistics, damned lies etc etc...

Whatever the precise figure, it has long been known that a direct comparison between ground and high altitiude based emissions is impossible.

In reply to psaunders:

But when was the last time you drove 8,000 miles to go on holiday for 2 weeks?

In reply to misterb:

It has been getting cheaper (in real terms and in £ per flight) for 25+ years, at least for travelling in Europe,


Chris

In reply to Siward:

Agree with you here. Stats are so easy to manipulate. Planes produce particles which act as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). At high altitude these clouds have a blanketing effect and contribute to global warming, this is rarely mentioned. Ships produce these same CCN's. The clouds form at much lower levels and reflect energy from the sun resulting in a cooling effect. Things are changing now as lower sulphur fuels are being used so fewer particles from ships to cause cloud formation. Of course there is also a benefit of less acid rain which outweighs the cooling benefit.

I gone a bit off topic but only as I am trying to demonstrate the complexity of some of these subjects. Picking and choosing from various papers you can put forward a convincing argument for just about anything.

In reply to Siward:

What does 'uses as much energy...' mean? Energy for what? Per km? For cooking food? And why do we care how much energy it uses anyway? That doesn't sound like a very good article.

Yep it is difficult to make a comparison, but that Oxford paper seems to consider a lot of factors surrounding this and comes up with numbers in about the range 50-120 g/km/seat for long-haul flights.

Manufacturing should also be taken into account, especially for aircraft aluminium which is refined by electrolysis.

I don't know whether 'per km per person' is a reasonable metric to judge whether air travel is acceptable or not. It does show that it's not disproportionately wasteful but whether we should travel 1000's of km at all is still debatable.

In reply to psaunders:

I suggest we revert to sail power alone. Far more civilised, what?

In reply to psaunders:

>...whether we should travel 1000's of km at all is still debatable.

On holiday, maybe, yes. But I travel 1000s of km to work, and to see family - like many people on the plane. Should I not go?

In reply to misterb:

The air fare for our yearly climbing holidays has gone up by 10quid per year since 2009, this is unacceptable.

In reply to Siward:

I agree, sail-powered airships are the future of long-distance travel. Get one up into the jet-stream and you will get along quite nicely, in one direction anyway.

In reply to misterb:
Emissions and fuel costs beside, my family's flight later this year is 65% airline costs, 5% USA airport, landing, admin and Homeland Security Costs, agent fees / profits and a whopping 30% UK Taxes and Departure fees. The remaining 5% is agent fees and their profits which really ain't very much.

My main gripe is of course the UK tax loading the proceeds of which simply drop into the general wash of 'taxes raised'.