America prepares to put final nail in economic coffin - Climate Change Buffonery

[alcoholbob]

Well that is probably the most fundamental flaw with capitalism. It requires constant growth. But since humans grew so rapidly in the last century, we are starting to severely impact the plant and will start to hit hard limitations in terms of resources in the somewhat near future if our attitudes don't change.

I didnt know capitalism started in 1913. You only need constant growth if your politicians give bankers a monopoly on issueing money and then charges interest for that power, which requires ever greater amounts money being printed to prevent a deflationary collapse.

 

[davmat787]

Your article is old, basically. In 2005 American Airlines was operating over 350 MD-80s, this year that will drop below 200 and they will be gone all together in a few more years. The current generation 737-800 is about 20% more fuel efficient than an MD-80 and carries an extra 10 people (in current configuration, was 20 more). They are also retiring the 757s and replacing with 737s/A320s/787 all which are much more efficient.

Airlines did not invest in fleet replacements from 2001 to about 2009. American had been taking 737s to replace older aircraft, but suspending the fleet replacement after 9/11.

There was a large dip in new aircraft designs during the 90s/early 2000s as well. Basically Boeing gave us the 737NG which was an improvement over the classic, but not earth shattering and the 777 which was a massive improvement over the 747. Airbus gave the A330, which was about the same as a 767, and the A340, which is a dog.

The 787 gets 20% improvement over the 767, 737Max and A320NEO will get a 12-15% increase over current gen aircraft. The A350 will get 20% better than the A330 (IIRC) and the 777Max will get 10-15% over the current 777s.

Also I am not sure about your source, seems that an agency pushing for cap and trade on airlines is probably manipulating the data to help their cause. Such as looking at every fleet at their max range, which is a very small percentage of flying and hides a lot of the efficiency gains, since efficiency gains can be traded for longer range. It also completely hides operational changes than have reduced fuel consumption, like using ground power/air at gates instead of APUs, single engine taxis and use of high speed tugs. It ignores engine cleanings, etc.

Here is an ATA article from 2009 Link


As for passenger traffic, in revenue seat miles, we are basically at the same level as 2007, and has been climbing since 2009. Here is a link you can play with, pretty cool site.

I will miss the 757's the most, but they should be flying for quite some time. There are still those niche routes that work best with a 757. Thinking of places like Tegucigalpa and other south American hot n high routes.

Would have loved to seen enough airlines show interest in the 757NG, but it wasn't meant to be and had bad timing.

 

[Jaskalas]

An inconvenient truth: US proposed emission cuts too little too late
Kevin Anderson on EPA climate regs:

'The maths accompanying obligations to “avoid dangerous climate change” demand fundamental change rather than rousing rhetoric and incremental action.'

'It signals yet another wealthy nation whose weak domestic targets are fatally undermining international obligations around 2°C.'

'Scientifically, the 30% target and the collective acquiescence it has triggered, is a death sentence for many of tomorrow’s more vulnerable communities.'

^ If the IPCC is correct, then "saving the planet" requires immediate fundamental change. Anyone not pushing for that sort of change is "killing the planet" just as much as the rest of us.

 

[shira]

An inconvenient truth: US proposed emission cuts too little too late
Kevin Anderson on EPA climate regs:
^ If the IPCC is correct, then "saving the planet" requires immediate fundamental change. Anyone not pushing for that sort of change is "killing the planet" just as much as the rest of us.

You're right, we need to do a lot more, and do it fast, to reduce the magnitude of damage that WILL be caused by climate change. But your use of the phrases "saving the planet" and "killing the planet" is just more dishonest rhetoric by the climate-change-denial community.

If mankind does nothing at all, the planet will survive. Even humanity will survive. But there will be enormous damage and enormous costs. The question is: How much damage are we willing to tolerate? And how big a cost to accommodate the damage are we willing to pay?

 

[ElFenix]

I haven't dug too deep for alternate studies but this article, while a few years old, indicates otherwise.

http://www.greenaironline.com/news.php?viewStory=684

Isn't it just possible people are flying a lot less in the last 5 to 10 years?

20 years ago no one was flying ERJs and CRJs halfway across the country. per seat mile and per ton mile, for loaded planes, they're less efficient than larger aircraft. but, they're more efficient than a half empty 737 or MD-80. so, on a per seat flown efficiency basis, assuming all planes had been max capacity, that's probably correct that efficiency hasn't gone up. but, on a per actual passenger moved basis, it's most likely way up because airlines aren't flying around half-empty airframes anymore. every flight is full because airlines right sized their fleets and their computers got much better at filling the flights.

 

[Darwin333]

According to the Chamber of Commerce, hardly a liberal institution, reduction of US emissions by 40% (a full third larger than this!) would cost us approximately 0.2% of our GDP per year. Considering the overwhelming scientific case for AGW and the consequences of it, 0.2% of GDP seems like a pretty fabulously cheap price to pay!

I'm sure this information makes you really happy. Maybe you're just mad that if the world shifted away from fossil fuels as a whole that this would limit Russia's financial ability to invade its neighbors? You were really a big fan of that.

Unfortunately, as the name implies, it is a global problem. The US will never drastically cut its emissions in a single year or two and while we cut ours most other countries will be increasing theirs. Being a global problem a global solution is obviously needed but I have yet to hear anything remotely close to a feasible global plan.

 

[fskimospy]

Unfortunately, as the name implies, it is a global problem. The US will never drastically cut its emissions in a single year or two and while we cut ours most other countries will be increasing theirs. Being a global problem a global solution is obviously needed but I have yet to hear anything remotely close to a feasible global plan.

The US is on target to meet those emissions goals and maybe exceed them. Additionally, after we announced our plan China announced plans for a carbon cap the day after.

Seems like excellent progress, no?

 

[Darwin333]

Since you obviously don't consider yourself a fool, why don't you enlighten us and reveal a new way to "grow" the economy.

Perpetually borrow metric fucktons of money and never pay it back.

 

[Darwin333]

Aircraft fleets are far more efficient today than they were a decade ago and becoming much more so quickly.

I highly doubt that major airlines replace that many aircraft in a decade. Hell how often does a new commercial jet get designed and produced in quantity large enough to make that big of a dent in a their fleets?

I read somewhere that airlines are flying their smaller aircraft a lot more and aren't flying as many trips as they used to which is why just about every flight I take is jam packed.

 

[K1052]

I highly doubt that major airlines replace that many aircraft in a decade. Hell how often does a new commercial jet get designed and produced in quantity large enough to make that big of a dent in a their fleets?

I read somewhere that airlines are flying their smaller aircraft a lot more and aren't flying as many trips as they used to which is why just about every flight I take is jam packed.

With high oil prices apparently here to stay the domestics are aggressively phasing out legacy aircraft that guzzle fuel while trimming capacities and shifting low intensity routes to regional jets. Even the regionals are turning over to more efficient aircraft now, mostly Embraer E series.

The 737 models replacing the MD-80 in AA's fleet are about 30% more fuel efficient. The next wave of aircraft to complete the replacement (737 MAX / A320neo) will be 10-15% more efficient than even those models. Between them Airbus and Boeing already have over 800 firm orders of next generation narrow body aircraft for US airlines. Meanwhile improved versions of current generation aircraft are still being delivered to them.

 

[thraashman]

 

[xgsound]

The US is on target to meet those emissions goals and maybe exceed them. Additionally, after we announced our plan China announced plans for a carbon cap the day after.

Seems like excellent progress, no?

Both of your positive examples are about the future. I'm saying they will not happen any more than the laughable 56 MPG limit for cars and trunks will be reached.

Jim

 

[Jaskalas]

...

You've seen the computer models fail time and again. It's based on the 20-year warming period from the 80s-90s continuing ad infinitum, or actually getting worse. Which obviously hasn't happened since the pause began.

That sort of failure is what happens when you cherry pick short term trends.

4-5c per doubling is not realistic. It is NOT happening.