• elephantium@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    150
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why not? Probably because:

    Bike pollution: .

    Car pollution: oooooooooo

    Plane pollution: OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO

    (bike pollution is slightly more than nil just because of the CO2 we breathe out while riding)

    • HiddenLayer5@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      53
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      bike pollution is slightly more than nil just because of the CO2 we breathe out while riding

      Technically, the CO2 animals exhale is carbon neutral because it’s from plants you eat (or your food eats). Unless you’re eating petroleum derived products of course.

      I say technically because while the plants themselves are carbon neutral, modern food production and distribution, especially meat production, still has a large carbon footprint. So your breath is only truly carbon neutral if you foraged for food in the forest on foot.

      • Noodle07@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        So your breath is only truly carbon neutral if you foraged for food in the forest on foot.

        So once again: return to monkee

    • CADmonkey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      1 year ago

      Don’t forget that many small propeller driven aircraft run on leaded gas, and it’s a formulation of leaded gas that has 10x the lead that motor fuel used to.

      • jarfil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        But, didn’t you hear the Midgey guy who invented TEL like 100 years ago? You can safely breathe it and even wash your hands in it! (said right after he got lead poisoning)

        • rexxit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That was a great watch - it’s cool to find out the history.

          I must say, society is much better off without widespread use of TEL, but as someone who used to do racecar things, TEL works like magic. A little goes a LONG way, and Midgely did legitimately stumble upon something with very high effect for the concentration (they also touch on ethanol in the video which has the drawback of needing a lot).

          I’m not opposed to using it in a small scale racing context (like definitely not NASCAR) because it’s so fucking useful and the quantity is unlikely to cause harm. Unfortunately so much bad has been done with it at this point, I don’t think that’s a very popular opinion.

          Whatever your views on it, it’s the only thing that can make gasoline legitimately 120+ octane, and that has huge implications for some types of racing.

      • rexxit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Worth noting that the amount of aviation fuel burned annually should make it a negligible contributer to environmental lead contamination compared to widespread automotive use (although I’m sure it contributes on airport grounds).

        Edit: All the pilots I know want to use unleaded, and it was recently approved after being stuck in a bureaucratic nightmare process, but market forces may make it hard to adopt.

    • CodeInvasion@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      Small aircraft have a carbon equivalent to large cars. My plane is from 1961 and has a fuel economy of 15mpg as the crow flies (arguably closer to 25mpg because of straight line measurements versus winding roads that can almost double the distance), seats 4 people comfortably, and flies at 160 mph.

      • elephantium@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hmm, interesting. I had the opposite impression. Maybe from discussion of private jets? I wonder how commercial jets vs. private jets vs. light aircraft fare – similar to cars vs. buses, perhaps? I haven’t actually dug much into this subject :\

        • jarfil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          how commercial jets vs. private jets vs. light aircraft fare

          Just looked some up, they’re approximately, per passenger:

          • -, bus, ~100…300mpg/pp
          • Commercial jet, -, ~60…120mpg/pp
          • Ultralight, motorbike, train, ~50mpg/pp
          • Light aircraft, car, ~15…60mpg/pp
          • Private jet, limo, ~5…50mpg/pp
          • Fighter jet, monster truck, ~0.5mpg/pp

          The more passengers, the more efficient.

          So, fully loaded, there isn’t that much difference between a private jet, a limo, a car, light aircraft, ultralight, motorbike, train, or low range commercial jet.

          But if it’s a single person, a private jet would use 10 times more fuel than a motorbike.

          A fully loaded bus, still wins hands down.

        • SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Props tend to be more efficient aircraft when it comes to fuel consumption but fly relatively low and slow. Jets are faster so they make more sense for ferrying people and cargo but they burn more fuel in the process.

        • rexxit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          It was caught in FAA-Bureauctatic hell for 15+ years and just approved last year. It will be still be slow to become available and adopt for reasons that are complicated, but amount to bureaucracy, economics, and an insane degree of risk aversion. The vast majority of pilots want unleaded and it’s also much better for the engines.

    • Mr_Will@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Walking pollution: …

      That’s right, bike pollution is less than walking (or running) pollution in terms of CO2 per mile travelled. Cycling typically burns ~⅓ of the calories compared to making the same journey on foot and there’s a direct link between calories burnt and CO2 produced.

      Cycling at 12mph takes roughly the same energy as walking at 4mph. You emit the same CO2 per minute, but get there in ⅓ of the time. Running at 12mph takes 3 times the effort of cycling at 12mph. You’ll get there in the same amount of time, but breath out 3 times as much CO2. Bicycles are more efficient than our own two legs - how cool is that!

    • Vashti@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve got to ask, though—how is breathing CO2 pollution? Aren’t we just taking in air, removing the oxygen, and exhaling the waste gases? Isn’t there the same net CO2 afterwards?

      Have I misunderstood something as simple as breathing? Please say no.

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        You haven’t misunderstood it! You’re just coupling cellular respiration with photosynthesis, which on the surface seems to balance to net zero – 6 CO2 molecules and sunlight create 1 glucose molecule, and we break down 1 glucose molecule for energy and generate 6 CO2 molecules.

        There’s one big factor though which isn’t immediately obvious, and that’s the rate of reaction. The chemical equations say nothing about how many molecules are consumed per second. In order for the net CO2 to be zero, they’d need to consume and generate CO2, respectively, at the same rate, which isn’t the case.

        It’s actually a really good thing, because photosynthesis happens faster. Plants are net negative CO2 because of that. What we’d need to complete this comparison now is how much CO2 a human generates by existing, and we can determine how many plants are needed per human to have the same net CO2.

      • frododouchebaggins@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        how is breathing CO2 pollution

        Same way that eating animals for B12 is “unethical”.

        Spoiler: things you need to be alive are not pollution or unethical.

    • XEAL@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      But, do that people have light aircrafts or motherfucking Boeings 787?

      • Depress_Mode@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Planes still require leaded gasoline and they are the largest contributor or airborne lead pollution in the US, probably the world.

        • uis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Planes still require leaded gasoline

          No, they don’t. It’s like saying all cars require leaded gasoline. They can work on it, but it’s banned in all countries.

          • theyoyomaster@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Piston driven planes still do use leaded gasoline. There is a very recent push to certify lead free avgas and progress is being made but they’re being a bit opaque and seemingly rushing it which is making a lot of people weary of it.

          • flynnguy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Planes that would land here typically use 100LL which contains lead. (LL stands for Low Lead). It’s not banned for aviation use.

            There has been a push recently to use alternatives which don’t contain lead but most places still have 100LL as it’s a very long process to get things certified for aviation use.

          • oatscoop@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            All the local small airports in the USA sell 100LL – “One hundred, low lead”.

            Modern small plane engines can run off regular unleaded, but a lot of small planes in the air are “old” and require leaded gas.

    • SkyNTP@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Cycling has carbon emissions if you factor the additional calorie intake needed to power your bike. :| Which will vary widely depending on your size, diet, and food source. Is it still a more sustainable form of transportation? Probably, but maybe not in extreme cases (like a 300-lb person eating beef daily flown in from the other side of the planet, versus, a tiny two seater electric car power off of solar energy, using batteries sourced from recycled materials) and it certainly isn’t 0 impact.

      Also, for extra pedantism, carbon emission are not pollution (in the sense that it doesn’t poison the life forms directly), but it is a GHG which causes harm to the environment too.

      • __dev@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you factor calorie intake of the bike rider you need to do the same for other forms of transportation. And if you account for the amount of exercise people are supposed to get to stay healthy there’s no additional calorie intake whatsoever.

    • bluGill@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      Plane pollution is not that much worse than a car. Depending on what metric you measure it can be better (planes are more fuel efficient and thus less CO2. Small planes like the picture generally use lead fuel and old engine designs that pollute more) on long trips.

      • awwwyissss@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I do love having heavy metals rain down on me from the sky so rich cunts can entertain themselves.

      • meat_popsicle@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nearly all land near small runways and airports that fly planes using AvGas will have lead contamination. That’s because lead is still used in most aviation fuels a consumer plane would use. Runways are also required to have and use PFAS in firefighting foam for emergencies. Training and system tests will dump that stuff in the surrounding area.

        Unless these fine folks have A380s they’re paying a hefty premium for lead exposure and PFAS in their water and soil.

        • bluGill@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Lead is only one factor of pollution though. You will note that i acknowledged it exists. There is no objective way to say what is the most important factor or how you compare them.

      • vreraan@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, planes are not more fuel efficient, even driving alone a car. The reason why it costs more to go by car is due to many reasons, especially the higher cost of fuel at petrol stations.

        • rexxit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, some light planes have fuel economy similar to efficient cars (which is very impressive considering how fast they are relative to cars). If you consider the advantages of direct, straight line routing, it’s not hard for planes to do better on fuel economy.

          We’re not talking about jets here, though some of those do very well in mpg on a per passenger basis.

    • Michal@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re only taking into account pollution and i bet you with the barrier of entry and cost accounted there would be less pollution from flying compared to driving.

        • Redscare867@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I think they’re trying to say that less people would fly than currently drive due to the cost of flying. Although, if we subsidized personal planes at the same rate that we do personal vehicles I’m not entirely sure that flying would continue to be so expensive.

        • Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s quite simple really. Less people would be able to fly, so those that can’t will just stand still in confusion until they die from starvation. The remaining population would be the small fraction who were able to afford to fly. Net loss in pollution.

        • Michal@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Flying is expensive and you need a license that’s substantially harder to get than a driver’s license.

      • elephantium@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re only taking into account pollution

        Yes, that’s correct. I’m not doing a serious study here, just summarizing the general sentiment I’ve observed.