I watched the Guy Martin episode where he was training to fly an old vampire jet. As always with the Guy Martin, its always very interesting to watch, I have watched more or less everything he has done and read all his books.
I do want to pull him up on one thing, in this episode he mentioned the oft repeated view that flying is bad for the environment.
Unless we are going to stop flying altogether, or stop using our cars, or stop using tech (that produces a lot of carbon at the data centres), then I don’t see the logic.
A light aircraft can do 20mpg, which is as good as a lot of SUV’s.
Concorde, notorious for “poor” fuel consumption, did 18mpg per passenger (assuming it was full).
Modern jets such as the 747 (which is being retired because newer jets are even better) did 68mpg per passenger (again assuming it was full).
If that number of passengers travel that distance by car, on average there are more injuries and fatalities – and more carbon produced overall.
Its not practical to go by car to the USA or Canada. Are ships really any better? For sure by the time you get there its time to come home again.
Some people will say but yes its in the sky. What about heavy electric cars, buses and lorries that use our streets and leave tyre particles in the sky close by? Everything is a compromise and the way forward has to be:
- Plant more trees.
- Only use what you have to. For example, I can take a trip on a jet once a year without feeling guilty because I know I’m doing my best – my car has only done 35000 miles in the last five years, which is only 7,000 a year.
- Don’t commute in a big SUV doing 20mpg when you can still buy an old small diesel car that does 60mpg – thats 3 times less carbon dioxide produced per mile. A SLK 250 would be my choice if I had to commute anywhere.
I am sure there are a lot more things that could be added to this list if you really thought about it.