ericMPro wrote:
ThisIsIt wrote:
sch340 wrote:
ThisIsIt wrote:
I still can't wrap my head around the flying less thing. If I decide to not take a flight to Kona, but everyone else does, how is energy use decreased? It only works if enough people decide to stop flying such that flights are cancelled, right?It's aggregate demand over time and over a population. You taking one less flight now won't affect anything in the short term, but over time, if you and enough people fly less, airlines will alter flight schedules or employ smaller/more efficient planes on existing routes to accommodate.
Think about it this way - say a plane has 100 seats. If you take 100 less flights over your lifetime, you've reduced demand by one whole flight. Over time, this is worked into the aggregate demand forecasts by airlines and affects the total number of flights that go out.
It's a little bit different than say, driving less, in which you make an immediate impact, but that impact is super tiny and basically a rounding error. With flying, your behavior change only works over time but is a much bigger chunk when it happens.
Right, so it's a potential savings vs. an actual savings.
I get the impact could be large, I'm just skeptical that me not taking the one flight or so I take a year would ever actually save any energy.
Question: would you flying twice as often use any energy?
Also, it’s not energy so much as greenhouse gas emissions, which is more than just CO2
I would think the chance would be pretty low that me doubling my flying frequency would result in an additional flight being added at some point.
I was just using "energy" as a proxy for environmental impact or whatever.