Your point, I understand. However, our personal hypocrisies have nothing to do with the accuracy of the message.

Were I to have written it, I would have said, “When we fly, we destroy people’s lives.” Solves the issue and maintains the power of the statement.

That was written shortly before he took a transatlantic flight to Canada to promote his book.

The biggest hurdle with biofuels is that aside from the fact they drive up food costs, due to the intensification of farming needed to produce the huge volumes of sawgrass, cane, corn or what have you, and all the machinery associated with harvesting, processing and delivery, they tend have the potential to produce MORE global warming in the end. Best case scenario they reduce emissions, but only slightly - certainly not in the neighborhood of the 90% we’re going to need.

Look, I don’t want to be a naysayer, and everything I say could be total bullshit as I don’t know this stuff firsthand, I just scour sources looking for likely accurate answers. Maybe biofuels in jets is the answer. . .but given what I think I know, it doesn’t seem right.

(I’m going to scoop up these comments and put them over in the jet fuel post.)

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/jul01/jet0701.htm

I\’ve no problem with the men and women of the aviation industry, nor am I stepping on them. YOUR numbers say we can keep aviation, wheras the numbers I come across that also take into account projected growth DO NOT. To me, it\’s better safe than sorry so I\’m going with my numbers. I agree with you that limited annual flights do less harm, but it isn\’t about more vs. less, it\’s about finding an equation that solves the problem, not one that gets closer to the goal than we are now but fails to cross the line. Better isn\’t good enough.

We\’re on the same page, mate. Cars have to go. Our cities must be rebuilt to. . .oh, just read the top post here that links to a much better blog and you\’ll see that you and are seeing eye to eye (other than that jets do not offer the most carbon-neutral form of travel!)

Also, thanks for taking the time to present your thoughts. Well formed, insightful and constructive. Much appreciated, they are.

The numbers say that we can keep our planes and survive, but not our cars (3% for aviation, 17% for the car, and while contrails may increase the heat, poisoning thousands of square mils with roads certainly does). Someone who drives 35 miles to work each does more harm to the environment than someone who cycles or takes the train and flies to London on holiday every year.

That doesn’t mean we should not look for more carbon-free ways to travel. It certainly does not mean we should simply expand air travel or any other activity without regard for the consequences. But the time has come for lose the pretense that we can keep our cars if we agree to feel really guilty about flying; in fact, the time as come to admit that the biosphere does not care about our feelings at all, and to make effective decisions about our transportation based on the facts and logic. And hard as you may find this, sometimes (as in going into remote communities) airplanes offer the most carbon-neutral form of transportation available.

1. Yes, of course there is anti-train lobbying. Has been for years and years. Oil companies have purchased our best train lines and subways and removed them since the turn of the century.

2. Many plans exist for bullet trains in the U.S., most notably a line that would connect SF with LA. To date, they’ve been squashed. I worked hard trying to get a line in my area, lost by 2% at the polls. The anti-train lobby is fierce and well-funded. . .not just auto and oil but contractors, cement companies, you name it.

3. Our current trains, especially where you are, totally suck and it’s too bad. Part of the reason it is hard to get public support for faster trains is the experience with existing lines is poor.

4. Mass transit needs to be more comfortable, more luxurious. It doesn’t cost much more to build a nice subway car or a wi-fi equipped train with comfortable seats and edible food.

I don’t care how anyone slices or dices it, flying is bad for the environment. Even Al Gore is going to need to learn to stay clower to home.