Emissions as a Choice in Flying?

Greetings,

I was in L.A. last week for the annual meeting of a non-profit group (www.onegreenthing.org) whose Advisory Board I serve on, and it’s always great to be back where I cut some of my teeth on energy. A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, I worked for Southern California Edison as a designer and manager of energy efficiency programs.

As you can guess, I took a plane to get here. And that brings me to the comments that I got on something I talked about in the last newsletter you received.

In that Post, I talked about how I had just had the pleasure of seeing the total eclipse in totality. I talked about how it had such an impression on me that I was already planning to travel to Iceland for the one in ’26 and to North Africa in ’27. Some of you thought that maybe I should think twice about that because of the carbon footprint of all that flying.

In thinking about this, and because I had to take a trip to L.A. last week, I came up with a Commentary idea other than the one I was planning to write about. You can see that in the usual Commentary Section below the blurbs.

But let me address here the main question of one’s carbon footprint. I think most of you know that reducing one’s carbon footprint is a good thing to do. You also probably know that the idea of a carbon footprint was the invention of PR forces working for the oil & gas industry.

In one sense you have to hand it to them – they have made us all think more about our personal carbon footprints than the corporate carbon footprints they have. And the latter are enormous compared to the tiny ones we as individuals have, with 57 companies in the world being responsible for 85% of the world’s carbon emissions. Even our collective carbon footprints hitting ideal levels, it is not enough to outweigh that.

On the listener call-in radio show I appear on people ask me how to reduce their carbon footprint. I give them ideas for doing that, but I also tell them to do those things when possible, and if it makes economic sense. For example, if they have just installed a new gas furnace or range, I don’t urge them to immediately replace them with an electric unit. Yes, the replacement would lower their carbon footprint, but it would not make sense.

I have done many things to reduce my carbon footprint, and I often write about my experiences in doing them. But my carbon footprint is far from perfect. I still eat a little meat, even as I am slowly weaning myself off it. I still fly, but just not as much, and I am much more discriminating in doing it. But even if we all do all the things to get us all as individuals to net zero, it won’t keep us under the temperature targets, and it won’t stop climate change.

Yes, climate change is our fault. But not because of our personal carbon footprints. It is because we have not focused on the big emitters and forced them to reduce.

We have to chew gum and walk at the same time. We have to do what we can to reduce our carbon footprint, while also doing what we can to make the big emitters reduce theirs. There is no other way.

Best,

Dan

_____________________________________________________

If you were forwarded this email, click the button below to sign up to receive these Blog Posts.

Join Our Email List

_______________________________

About my Last Commentary

My last thought piece was about trees, and their importance to addressing climate change. I also sought to remind you that there is a national and state holiday devoted to trees – Arbor Day.

As it happens, in the time since my last newsletter, I have come across several items regarding trees and climate change, so I will list them here for those of you who want more on that topic.

Cities Are Examining if Different Urban Tree Species Needed as Climate Changes

https://grist.org/agriculture/climate-change-tree-urban-city-arborists-heat-drought-native-species/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=daily

It’s Not Just Wildfires That Threaten Forests as a Carbon Sink

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/4618516-hurricanes-threaten-forests-carbon-markets/?email=467cb6399cb7df64551775e431052b43a775c749&emaila=12a6d4d069cd56cfddaa391c24eb7042&emailb=054528e7403871c79f668e49dd3c44b1ec00c7f611bf9388f76bb2324d6ca5f3&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=04.24.24%20Sustainability%20BH

Forests Not the Sink They Used to be?

https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2024/04/23/forests-trap-less-carbon-than-before-epa-says-00153428

More Shade Thrown on Trees as Offsets

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/04/21/redd-carbon-credits-amazon-peru/

_____________________________________________________

Links to Past Posts:

The Forgotten Climate Holiday in April (not Earth Day)

Climate Change and the Snail Darter

St. Patrick's Day and Climate Change

Charging My Car in Manhattan

Step Into These Shoes Wearing a Climate and Energy Hat

Resilience Recognition is Rising - But There is That Other Thing

There is no "O" in Climate Change

It was an Instagram COP - And I am Finally OK with That

How to Talk About Climate With Your Crazy Uncle at Thanksgiving

Monty Python and Climate Change

What You Need to Know About NIMBYism

H mm..So How Much Did My Heat Pump Really Cost?

What it Means to Be a Climate Voter

The Climate Conundrum of Air Conditioning

Predictions Made About Utilities Made 10 Years Ago - How Did They Hold up?

My Vote For The Most Under-Appreciated Impact of Climate Change

10 Things I Should Have Written About

So I Went to the COP - Here Are My Top 10 Takeaways.

Efficiency and Clean Energy - Faster vs More

Efficiency & Clean Energy - More vs. Faster

It's Time For A Climate Vote - On the Record

Good COP, Bad COP .....Thoughts Before Glasgow

One of These Things is Not Like the Others

What I Should Have Written About

The Serenity of Being a Climate Voter

_____________________________________________________

Some Things That Caught My Eye ...

The Climate Focus Needs to be on Making Plastic – Not Recycling It

I would say that 8-9 times out of ten that when I get into a general chat about climate change, they bring up the fact that they are taking climate action by recycling. I applaud them and then gently point out that recycling is way down on the list of things that a person should do in terms of emissions-reducing actions.

But I must admit, I did not know that much about the climate profile of manufacturing plastics other than knowing that it takes fossil fuels to produce them. A new Report from the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL) has changed that. It shows that making plastics cause 4x the emissions of the airline industry. It shows that the industry’s emissions are equivalent to those of around 600 coal plants – and growing. Check out this article and the report.

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/4601309-plastics-industry-heats-world-four-times-as-much-as-air-travel-report-finds/?email=467cb6399cb7df64551775e431052b43a775c749&emaila=12a6d4d069cd56cfddaa391c24eb7042&emailb=054528e7403871c79f668e49dd3c44b1ec00c7f611bf9388f76bb2324d6ca5f3&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=04.18.24%20%E2%80%94%20Energy%20%26%20Environment%C2%A0%E2%80%94%20RF

https://energyanalysis.lbl.gov/publications/climate-impact-primary-plastic

What do EVs do to the Grid?

I often get the question “Will the grid be able to handle all of the EVs set to be connected to it?”.

I usually answer by saying yes. I say that the electricity industry and those who regulate it are aware of the move to EVs and are including this new factor in their planning and actions.

But in saying that, I am not trying to say that the effect of EVs on the grid will be minor. It just has to be planned for as part of the overall electrification that is taking place.

For example, a new Report shows that more than two-thirds of electricity distribution circuits in California will require capacity upgrades by 2045 in order to meet electric vehicle (EV) demands. More at the link.

https://thehill.com/policy/equilibrium-sustainability/4615380-california-grid-electric-vehicles-upgrade-required-study/?email=467cb6399cb7df64551775e431052b43a775c749&emaila=12a6d4d069cd56cfddaa391c24eb7042&emailb=054528e7403871c79f668e49dd3c44b1ec00c7f611bf9388f76bb2324d6ca5f3&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=04.24.24%20Sustainability%20BH

Look What Provided Power to the Grid in CA During a Recent Week

In California last week, conditions were more, well, pacific. On Tuesday night, there were around 6 gigawatts of battery storage discharging onto the grid, more than the 5 gigawatts of natural gas or the 4.5 gigawatts of hydro power at the time. You heard that right - batteries were the largest source of power on the grid.

https://heatmap.news/climate/texas-california-grid-batteries

What’s Wrong With This (Solar) Picture?

The more solar energy the better, right? Well, yes … but it’s not that simple. At certain times, California has more solar than it can use, and it has to “dump it” as the utility term refers to it. The issue of course is when the solar is available versus when the electricity demand is. A mismatch on that can lead to various issues, including how much a customer with solar is paid for their injection of electricity into the grid and how many people install solar because of that. This (no pay-wall) article gives a good overview of all of this and what it means for

https://wapo.st/4b5k7W5

The Talking Point You Need About Carbon Markets

It is easy to think that carbon pricing and carbon trading is not a big thing when the U.S. does not have a national policy and system.

However, almost one-third of the world's population now lives in an area with an emissions trading system, according to a new Report. The analysis included both economywide systems — like those in California and Washington state — as well as markets that target specific sectors, such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative for utilities in 11 Northeast states.

In total, 36 mandatory and voluntary markets operate worldwide. They cover 13 countries; five Chinese cities; and 25 states or provinces in the United States, China, Japan and Canada.

https://icapcarbonaction.com/en/publications/emissions-trading-worldwide-2024-icap-status-report

If We Know More About Methane, Will it Matter?

It wasn’t that long ago that Methane was hardly mentioned in general discussions about climate change. We know better now. We know that around 1/3 of the emissions since the industrial revolution are attributable to methane. We know that methane is a more potent (i.e. traps more heat) than carbon dioxide, but yet it doesn’t stay in the atmosphere. We also know that it is likely cheaper to eliminate its emissions.

Because of the launch of a new satellite, we will soon know more about methane, but as this fine (no-pay-wall) Op Ed discusses, will we do anything differently with this new knowledge. Will we act on methane because of new data, when it seems we know enough already to mount efforts to reduce it? And if we can’t act on methane, how can we ever act on the much harder problem of carbon dioxide.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/20/opinion/climate-change-methane-satellite-emissions.html?unlocked_article_code=1.nE0.v7Ln.tqkSonYJmHKp&smid=url-share

Who Wouldn’t Want Bi-Directional Charging?

When I explain to someone that it is possible for some EVs to not only be charged at their home, but “go the other way” and be used as a battery for their home, they seem to think about EVs much more positively than they may have previously. This is called “Bi-Directional” charging. Right now, not all EVs can do it, but GM just announced they have added it to some vehicles. Experts predict all EVs will have this capability before too long.

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/GM-energy-launches-first-vehicle-to-home-charging-products-v2h/713988/?utm_medium=email

OK, Boomer … Start Preparing Your Defense

It is always good to remind ourselves that that there is 50% more CO2 in the atmosphere than in 1980. This unlocked article from the NYT has a 4-second animated chart which is worth a look.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/04/20/upshot/carbon-dioxide-growth.html?unlocked_article_code=1.mE0.KlMU.QCcLfblEtZfc&smid=url-share

What the “Net” in Net Zero Means, and How Much it Will Cost

The term “net zero” may be part of your vernacular even as you may be thinking of it as something different than it is. Achieving net zero does not mean zero emissions of carbon. That will be impossible for any foreseeable timeframe. It means preventing any growth in emissions, primarily through two means.

One of them is removing greenhouse gases as they are created and emitted and converting/storing them such that they never make it to the atmosphere. The other is extraction, which is like it sounds - removing greenhouse gases that are already in the atmosphere.

This is of course one of the “Holy Grails” of the battle against warming and climate change. But this grail will not come cheaply, as the items in these links lay out.

https://heatmap.news/climate/carbon-removal-100-billion-rhodium?utm_campaign=em_newsletter&utm_medium=email&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--Ez4n-Kt4cNpU666uzU3mDHMidumrdUXXt4yCOzD9KzEpN1Ou_PSWt7oshKNTFkSWmRNo-DB8MkyuocyNpXliycHsQrw&_hsmi=302113391&utm_source=hubspot

https://rhg.com/research/carbon-dioxide-removal-us-policy/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosgenerate&stream=top

An Ominous Sounding New Legal Theory – Climate Homicide?

I report now and then on how climate has entered the court room across the U.S. and elsewhere in the world, with most cases being based on the alleged responsibility of oil & gas companies for damages from their emissions – impacts which they knew would occur.

But a new term has entered the fray that refers to whether or not petroleum producers be held criminally responsible for climate-related deaths that occurred after companies allegedly deceived the public about the dangers of burning fossil fuels? A new paper argues that they can, and authors say this legal theory — known as “climate homicide” — is already garnering a lot of interest from prosecutors. See what you think.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4335779

Using Offsets to Decommission Coal Plants

To say that offsets have not been one of the “holy grails” in the battle to stem climate change would be an understatement. Systems for creating, validating, and transferring a “credit” that is created by some action that can be used by a company to reduce the reductions a company must make of its own emissions have been replete with problems and even semi-scandals.

A new proposal aims to address some of those problems and use clean energy-linked offsets in a more targeted manner. Here is the no-pay-wall link to more on this.

https://wapo.st/44jv8Af

____________________________________________________

gotten limaNot Eart

h Day)

Choosing a Flight Based on Emissions?

I went to L.A. last week for the Annual Meeting of a Non-Profit’s Advisory Council that I serve on. The organization is called One Green Thing, and it focuses on addressing climate anxiety, and how doing “green things” can help address it – while also helping the climate. Some of us had never met before, and it was great to connect in person. We spent a total of somewhere around 16 hours together. It is tough to do a 16 hour Zoom Call.

I hardly fly anywhere these days. But when I do, I find planning a flight has gotten much more complicated. First, I do whatever I can to avoid a connection, even if I am not checking bags. I do this recognizing that it requires more time from point A to point B, but also that there is a higher potential the myriad of complications that can arise with connections. In addition, there are more emissions from plane’s during take-off, and connections have two take-offs, and not just one. Also, connections end up flying more miles, as they are likely not a direct flight path.

The second thing I do as of late is try to avoid a Max plane. Maybe I am overreacting, but it seems that there is a little bit too much news out there about that model such that it makes one think.

With those factors in mind, I used Google Flights to search for flights and looked at what other information was available to sort potential flights by.

One of them was the emissions of each possible flight. This was represented by a number with a plus or minus sign in front of it, which was showing whether a particular flight was above or below the average for all flights going between my two cities (in this case, NY, and LA)

But the two criteria that most people use in choosing a flight – cost and departure/arrival time. I am one of those people, and that is when things got complicated for my trip.

If I had chosen emissions as my prime criteria, I could have booked a same-cost flight on several airlines, but my flight timing was seriously thrown awry if I did that.

So … I had to (gulp) choose a flight with higher emissions. To do otherwise, it would have screwed up my schedule so badly it might have taken an extra day of travel and an extra night in a hotel.

The next thing I could have done was purchase carbon offsets for my travel, but I didn’t do that. My reason is that there has been considerable shade thrown on offsets, particularly ones related to deforestation and reforestation, which is what the airlines in many cases have used. There have been major scandals. Offsets have burned up in wildfires.

In the 1990’s, I was involved in the birth of the offsets movement and was not only a supporter but a promoter of them. They made so much sense, as in “if you can do something carbon-positive over ‘there’ more cheaply than doing some over ‘here’, do it over there” But now I must admit I am not sure how to think or what to do about offsets.

So where does all this leave me?

It leaves me squarely in the mindset that having consumers think about the environmental and emissions profile of their purchases is a good thing. All of us should be doing that. But as I showed with my example above, it be challenging for other reasons to factor it in. Furthermore, even if that starts to get better, the cumulative reduction will not be enough to make the necessary dent in overall emissions.

The only way to get the amount of carbon reductions we need to have a chance of keeping atmospheric CO2 concentrations low is to make the emitters reduce. And that means policy - making policy as fast as we can and making it fast-acting policy. That means emission standards, fuel standards, building standards, appliance standards, renewable energy standards, etc. It means not allowing new gas hook-ups. It means carbon pricing and carbon tax policy.

For the airline industry, this all means that planes must be much more efficient, and airplane fuel has to be much cleaner.

For transportation overall, it means measures to force all modes to become cleaner, whether it is autos & trucks, air travel, or ocean-going shipping.

Consumers are funny animals that make purchasing choices for all sorts of reasons. They can change their wants and willingness very quickly based on choices that have nothing to do with emissions impact. Just look at what is happening with EVs, where manufacturers suddenly see hybrid vehicles as a better bet for the near term based on a shift in consumer thinking on EVs.

Moreover, products change, and get better over time in all sorts of ways and we are in a consumer-driven economy and society where many people love to buy the next new thing. Most of us keep things for a while, though. In the case of autos, a snapshot by the folks at Kelly Blue Book in mid-2023 showed that the average was 12.5 years. That kind of natural turn-over doesn't yield emissions big enough and soon enough.

We need to make sure that consumers make the right choices when it comes to emissions and carbon footprint. But if we only focus on that, and not on making the corporate world reduce the emissions it has control over and is responsible for, we are missing the mountain because we are only looking at the molehill.

_____________________

If you were forwarded this email, click the button below to sign up to receive these Blog Posts.

Join Our Email List

_______________________

Links to Past Posts:

The Forgotten Climate Holiday in April (not Earth Day)

Climate Change and the Snail Darter

St. Patrick's Day and Climate Change

Charging My Car in Manhattan

Step Into These Shoes Wearing a Climate and Energy Hat

Resilience Recognition is Rising - But There is That Other Thing

There is no "O" in Climate Change