Politics Not every tonne of aviation CO2 is created equal

[PEMM]

Not every tonne of aviation CO2 is created equal

Now that the ICCT has compiled global data for 2018, it is possible to identify the top emitters that year in terms of adjusted per capita CO2 emissions. The results are shown in the figure below. After adjusting for the above-described tourism and hub effects, we see that the average Singaporean generated more than 1.2 tonnes of aviation CO2 emissions in 2018—12 times the global average. Finland and Iceland were second and third, respectively, emitting around 1 tonne of CO2 per capita. Swedes, who started the flygskam (“flying shame”) movement, emitted the seventh largest amount of aviation CO2 on a per capita basis in 2018. A country’s level of economic development undeniably plays a role here, as in each of these countries, a larger-than-average portion of the population has enough money to fly.

Not every tonne of aviation CO2 is created equal - International Council on Clean Transportation

When it comes to reducing aviation emissions, not every choice has the same impact.

theicct.org

That is indeed important factor... in addition to geographical location? All top countries are countries where it's difficult to get anywhere any other way.

 

[IDF_TANKER]

I think what is in common between all those countries is the relative remoteness (from typical/common travel destinations) or/and the sheer size of the territory. But, yes, I can see how a stab at Swedish hypocrisy can be rather enjoyable.

 

[PEMM]

I think what is in common between all those countries is the relative remoteness (from typical/common travel destinations) or/and the sheer size of the territory. But, yes, I can see how a stab at Swedish hypocrisy can be rather enjoyable.

Yes, and going by boat

And if we were to go by ship, it would be even worse in regards to CO2 emissions. And for business there isn't really any other way.

 

[primer]

Admittedly we also have methane but is lifetime is short in the air. But we also have millions acres of forest and all hydro dams which aren't in that equation.

NZ greenies stopped milling native timber decades before warmers or extinctionists. Now its just rots away on the forest floor. Yet we are not allowed one measly carbon credit for it.

 

[PEMM]

I think I have read somewhere that unkept forest is much worse carbon sink than one that is grown for forest industry. Rotting wood is one part of it.

 

[primer]

Another myth as carbon is sequestered in the soil. That's the bottom line. Unless they are trying to brainwash that now those trees in a Amazon are worthless. Its hard to argue both ways.
Coal was never created...
Farming also sequester carbon in the soil and thats also not included.

 

[primer]

Today is nitrogen in the EU..thats the problem

Farming groups believe measurement of carbon dioxide and nitrogen is inaccurate and the debate over emissions has been hijacked by city-based climate change protesters."We feel as if we're being put in the dunces' corner by city types who come and tell us how things should be in the countryside," one of the protest organisers, Mark van den Oever, told the Trouw website, adding that farmers shouldn't be blamed for the whole nitrogen issue.

 

[PEMM]

Another myth as carbon is sequestered in the soil. That's the bottom line. Unless they are trying to brainwash that now those trees in a Amazon are worthless. Its hard to argue both ways.
Coal was never created...

It's not a matter of being worthless. It's a matter of not being as fast in tying the carbon (because it's not optimized for growth) and the fact that rotting wood releases CO2. However rotting is not fast enough to completely burn the wood, the decaying wood then in time accumulates to peat which cam turn to coal under pressure.

EDIT: However the comparison was between Finnish forests. Can't really draw conclusion to some completely different climate about which strategy to use. And if you just go and burn the wood, then definitely the natural forest wins.

 

[Mordoror]

I think I have read somewhere that unkept forest is much worse carbon sink than one that is grown for forest industry. Rotting wood is one part of it.

Depends of a lot of factors but yes, a grown up forest is 3/4 less efficient as a carbon sink that a growing forest. At least if the soil permit growth up to a certain height and density like in european forests
Doesnt work with tropical forest because the soil is pretty poor and once big trees are down, only bushes are growing

 

[Mordoror]

Another myth as carbon is sequestered in the soil. That's the bottom line. Unless they are trying to brainwash that now those trees in a Amazon are worthless. Its hard to argue both ways.
Coal was never created...
Farming also sequester carbon in the soil and thats also not included.

No it is not. You are again talking of thing you dont understand

 

[BCNTM]

Emma Watson's carbon footprint is THREE TIMES the average

Swedish academics analysed the carbon footprints of ten famous people who travel the globe, including actress Emma Watson, Bill Gates and Paris Hilton.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Good old Bill - top of the list