Is the greenest living mostly about going "small"? (heating, buying)

[mhays25]

SOME activists act that way. Taking private jets occasionally might be justifiable if they need to rush to a meeting for example. Big houses are definitely the opposite of the idea I'm espousing, no matter how green their incredients and operation.

[leastprime]

Originally Posted by mhays25

SOME activists act that way. Taking private jets occasionally might be justifiable if they need to rush to a meeting for example. Big houses are definitely the opposite of the idea I'm espousing, no matter how green their incredients and operation.

thinking about this:
Commercial scheduled airlines have ~80% (guess) average seats sold. Which may mean that some flights have many unsold seats-especially on daily repositioning flights.
vs Private planes are only flown when there are paying customers.

which is more efficient? airlines with hub and spoke with seats sold or airlines with point-to-point with fewer seats sold?

We take public transportation because its more convenient and cost effective for us. But is it energy efficient taking public transportation that is 50% longer miles than taking a private car that is more direct?

[victimofGM]

Originally Posted by leastprime

thinking about this:
Commercial scheduled airlines have ~80% (guess) average seats sold. Which may mean that some flights have many unsold seats-especially on daily repositioning flights.
vs Private planes are only flown when there are paying customers.

which is more efficient? airlines with hub and spoke with seats sold or airlines with point-to-point with fewer seats sold?

We take public transportation because its more convenient and cost effective for us. But is it energy efficient taking public transportation that is 50% longer miles than taking a private car that is more direct?

Or they could teleconference instead of flying around the world

[chirack]

Originally Posted by leastprime

thinking about this:
Commercial scheduled airlines have ~80% (guess) average seats sold. Which may mean that some flights have many unsold seats-especially on daily repositioning flights.
vs Private planes are only flown when there are paying customers.

which is more efficient? airlines with hub and spoke with seats sold or airlines with point-to-point with fewer seats sold?

We take public transportation because its more convenient and cost effective for us. But is it energy efficient taking public transportation that is 50% longer miles than taking a private car that is more direct?

Point to point does not lead to fewer seats sold. People do more travel for business and the old hub and spoke was slower but more profitable under the right conditions. The way hub and spoke worked was to use smaller planes to transfer people to hubs then use larger planes like the 747 to fly them long distance. Commercial airlines will cancel routes that don't sell enough seats or use a smaller plane.

Larger planes are more cost and fuel efficient with larger passenger loads. Smaller planes with smaller passenger loads but a little less cost efficient in terms of labor. The direct route is more attractive to consumers because it is faster and more frequent. In the past there were more tourist flying and tourist are more flexible about departure and arrival times. Now days it is people who are working or are traveling for reasons other than tourism and they have less flexibility about departure and arrival time.

The reason why people own or lease private planes isn't about repositing. It is about ability having maximum control over the time at which they can depart or arrive.

Anyway it depends on the method of transport. Trains yes are more energy efficient even when the route is not direct. They just have other problems like not frequent enough or practical enough. Buses are another story. Busses are less fuel efficient than cars but if full they can make up for it by carrying more per amount of fuel used. Public transport isn't always 50% longer in terms of miles. It just takes longer in terms of time because it isn't door to door non stop.

[mhays25]

Originally Posted by leastprime

thinking about this:
Commercial scheduled airlines have ~80% (guess) average seats sold. Which may mean that some flights have many unsold seats-especially on daily repositioning flights.
vs Private planes are only flown when there are paying customers.

which is more efficient? airlines with hub and spoke with seats sold or airlines with point-to-point with fewer seats sold?
We take public transportation because its more convenient and cost effective for us. But is it energy efficient taking public transportation that is 50% longer miles than taking a private car that is more direct?

I agree that if several people are flying in a group (like with many super-wealthy or senior officials), the private flight, which is also more direct, could be better.

But in general, public transit (including planes) would typically require a small fraction of the materials and energy per person per mile. A bus that averages 30 passengers might equal several cars, but a fraction of 30.

Cars involve a bunch of externalities, starting with the need to build parking everywhere they go, hence the astonishing number of parking spaces in the US in particular. And accommodating peak travel in an urban location is basically impossible with only cars.

Road and parking construction is a huge contributor to environmental problems, especially because it needs to be everywhere at huge scale. Transit uses constructed facilities waaaay more efficiently. (I say that as a construction analyst.)

[Lincolnian]

Small is a key component of true green living since less resources are used resulting in less impact on the environment. We could significantly reduce damage to the planet simply using less, living in a smaller foot print, driving smaller vehicles, etc. Sadly, conservationism, once a conservative ideal, has been rebranded in modern society as some type of radical anti-American threat.

[Phil P]

In general it is, cause using less is guaranteed to benefit the environment whereas tech fixes usually have some sort of externality or need to be used X amount of times to really start benefiting.

The issue is that 20% of Americans are the ones doing most of the consumption and pollution. Like with beef consumption, it's not something that's spread out evenly, like 12% of people eat 50% of it. Myself I've taken action by moving to a place that has the stuff I like so I only drive like 6000 miles annually now and I rarely fly, but I don't go overboard and try to get everything to 0, I just try to be reasonable and not wasteful.

One positive trend IMO is business travel. It's already been reduced, but I don't think the reductions are done. Movement in the way people operate, especially the old people on top of the corporate ladder is SLOW. Going forward, there will be less, as companies increasingly realize how expensive it is and as new faces come into the executive scene that had experience being remote.

I think the cluster that is airports and airlines will taper flying usage. It seems like the issues with the industry are pretty baked in, stock valuations are really low, and the meh experience will make people decide not to hop on a plane so readily.

Originally Posted by mhays25

I agree that if several people are flying in a group (like with many super-wealthy or senior officials), the private flight, which is also more direct, could be better.

But in general, public transit (including planes) would typically require a small fraction of the materials and energy per person per mile. A bus that averages 30 passengers might equal several cars, but a fraction of 30.

Cars involve a bunch of externalities, starting with the need to build parking everywhere they go, hence the astonishing number of parking spaces in the US in particular. And accommodating peak travel in an urban location is basically impossible with only cars.

Road and parking construction is a huge contributor to environmental problems, especially because it needs to be everywhere at huge scale. Transit uses constructed facilities waaaay more efficiently. (I say that as a construction analyst.)

Especially with the new news coming out about tire particles and the amount of animals getting smushed by cars as roads cut up the environment.

[ApprenticeWineSnob]

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, in that order.
The cheapest unit of energy is the one you didn't use.

[leastprime]

I haven’t been to McDonald’s in a really long time even though it’s a few blocks away.
Used a McDonald’s BOGO today on Quarter Pounders. Dine-in. Paper Bag, Corrugated box for each burger, and 3 recyclable brown paper napkins. Why the napkins? The burger was dry, no mayonnaise, the cheese was gooey, and the pickles weren’t pickles. Besides, I had sleeves, and long pants, and the toilet was near by.
The remaining refuse went into the trash bin because I decided that I didn’t want to separate the foil ketchup pouches from the recycleable paper.

Be another couple of years, I imagine

[mhays25]

I go to a breakfast dive once a week. They give you a napkin wrapped around each set of silverware, plus a few extras for the table. Usually the extras make it into my pocket. I never need to buy anything napkin-like for the kitchen.