comment #1

Anonymous says ...

the horrors! you won't be able to go to toronto and pound out those scintillating dispatches about who gives you wireless internet and how grumpy you are that studios don't let you just diss them wildly? holy first amendment, batman, what will we do?????

comment #2

oddDuck says ...

I'd be very surprised if there were a total ban on carry-on luggage for any period of time. As far as I know, there isn't one at this moment, and there probably won't be. Major chunks of our economy rely in part on people traveling with laptops every week if not everyday. So it just won't happen unless something terrible comes our way.

comment #3

travis b. says ...

the ban so far only covers liquid based materials and electronic key fobs.....so, unless there is a terror plot concerning laptops, i don't think the government would go that far.

comment #4

NYCBusybody says ...

Jeff, why do you have to fly to Toronto? Why not carpool in a hybrid with other journalists? Surely you don't need to fly, as that would worsen global warming.

comment #5

Why are you so unhappy? says ...

I was wondering how long it would take NYCBusyBody to post some cranky, bitter message from Mommy's basement.

comment #6

Daniel says ...

I'm just glad to see that in the midst of this breaking news story, Jeffrey's got *exactly* the right perspective on the whole thing. That's what a journalist has to do after all... look at all the facts and get to the most important kernel of the story.

"I'm not unconcerned or uninterested in the greater public horror..." I'm just more concerned about my ability to take my computer some place entirely different more than a month from now.

Geez.

comment #7

NYCBusybody says ...

Hey! The mommy's basement is my line! Boo hiss. I may be cranky, but I'm not a copycat.

comment #8

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Wells to NYC Busbody: It's not currently looking like a laptop carry-on ban will be in effect, thank goodness. But you know what? I would be totally cool with car-pooling and driving to Toronto if it came to that. I haven't driven across the country in many years.

comment #9

NYCBusybody says ...

Besides, I was only being half-sarcastic! I think it would be a great opportunity to show he's really committed to the cause!

comment #10

NYCBusybody says ...

There you go! See, it would be good for the environment, prove you're willing to act on your convictions, and give yourself a chance to give at least a fair, sporting chance to see some of your dreaded Red States.

My ideas aren't ALL bad.

comment #11

oddDuck says ...

But let's be realistic, that commercial plane is flying to Toronto with or without Wells. His driving there ain't gonna change the plane's fuel's consumption by much at all.

More generally, isn't commercial air travel pretty low on the environmental no-no's? It's not like he's taking a private jet.

comment #12

Anonymous says ...

jeff, i swear to god, you should get on your bike, put the laptop in a backpack and set off across america today, making it to toronto on your own speed by the time of the festival. wind in your hair, grow a beard, dispatches from the road, see films in each small town across this great land of ours as you re-discover your love for cinema and the genuine people from our heartland. Trust me, by the time you hit Ohio, everyone from the New York Times to the San Diego Trib will be dying to profile you. a 21st century Kerouac-Blogiac movie journalist. it's genius. pack. leave. today.

comment #13

NYCBusybody says ...

"According to the Edinburgh Centre for Carbon Management, a consulting company that advises businesses and governments on strategies to mitigate climate change, an average commercial flight in the United States releases nearly 1,800 pounds of greenhouse gas, per passenger, into the atmosphere."

oddDuck, wasn't the motto of the 60's to "be the change you want to see?" You can hardly use it as an excuse that "well, everyone else is gonna do it". Principles, man!

comment #14

NYCBusybody says ...

"To put it another way, a Boeing 747 traveling from New York to London and back exhales some 440 tons of carbon dioxide -- roughly equal to what 80 SUVs cough up during a year of rush-hour driving."

comment #15

Anonymous says ...

British officials ban all carry-on baggage from flights, allowing passengers to carry only personal effects like wallets, eyeglasses, passports and keys.

comment #16

Anonymous says ...

Some passengers from recent cruises were even throwing out or selling bottles of liquor.

comment #17

Anonymous says ...

inflight movies make a huge comeback...must get your entertainment on the airplane as opposed to bringing it on. so we'll just start charging a couple of extra bucks for those movies, DVDs, and games. man, this could be SO good for us!!!.....wait a minute, how much of a jackass am I?

comment #18

T. H. Ung says ...

You're gonna get a Writely account (web based word processing) and buy a bare bones email centric wireless ready laptop and check it in your luggage or ship it by Fed Ex ahead of time to your destination.

http://www.writely.com/

comment #19

Anonymous says ...

You'll email your writings to someone who will post them for you.

comment #20

Edward says ...

One of my not impossible to achieve fantasies is to motorcycle across country and see a major league baseball game in every city.

comment #21

NYCBusybody says ...

I've read about people doing that, Edward. Baseball's financially doable.

I want to do it for the NFL, but it's way too expensive.

comment #22

Edward says ...

NYC, that'd be fun, but a motorcycle ride in winter...More daring than I'm ready for.

comment #23

Hating NYCBusyBody!! says ...

NYCBusybody is such a pest ... obnoxious, stupid, says the most assinine things, and seems to have issues.

It would be best for this individual to disappear and never post again.

comment #24

NYCBusybody says ...

sighs....Ok, mom, get off the computer.

My mother, ladies and gentlemen.

comment #25

Hating NYCBusyBody!! says ...

I would like to apologize. It was a reactionary moment of anger based off your comments on Red States and such.

comment #26

NYCBusybody says ...

Not sure what that means, but I accept all apologies, my good man. I'm a uniter, not a divider.

comment #27

Not Hating NYCBusyBody says ...

Fair enough.

comment #28

Edward says ...

I like the idea of Jeffrey on a cruiser on his way to Toronto, writing about his experiences on his way.

comment #29

NYCBusybody says ...

And if he does it, and gets props and attention from the media for his trek, he better credit me with part of the idea.

Media gadfly: "How were you inspired to do this?"

Wells: "Oh, some annoying asshole that posts on my site suggested it half-sarcastically".

Priceless.

comment #30

Mark Ebner says ...

Pack you laptop securely in your checked luggage.

comment #31

nemo says ...

"To put it another way, a Boeing 747 traveling from New York to London and back exhales some 440 tons of carbon dioxide -- roughly equal to what 80 SUVs cough up during a year of rush-hour driving."

That makes the Boeing 747 sound bad, but only because you haven't done the back of the envelope calculations to make it clear what you are really comparing.

Suppose those 80 SUVs spend 1 hour in rush-hour traffic twice a day. They do that 5 days a week for 52 weeks a year. We won't even take time off for vacations or holidays (this assumption makes the SUVs look more CO2 efficient).

So for 440 tons of carbon dioxide, we have bought this many SUV hours in a year:

80 SUVs * 2 hours per day * 5 days per week * 52 weeks
= 41,600 SUV hours

During rush hour, nearly every one of those SUVs is carrying one person. Very few people in the US carpool, even those in the same family, since they usually go different directions to work.

That is also a high estimate of the number of SUV hours achieved by 80 SUVs in a year, not only because we've estimated the number of SUV days on the high side, but also because most people don't put in a full hour of commuting each way.

Now how many SUV hours would the passengers on a Boeing 747 have to drive in order to cover the equivalent of a round-trip from New York to London?

A Boeing 747 holds 524 passengers (from wikipedia). The one-way distance from New York to London is 3470 miles, a lot further than the 2460 miles from NY to LA (Google "new york london distance").

Assume each one of those 524 passengers is going to drive an SUV by himself a distance of 2 * 3470 miles (remember, we are comparing this to the behavior of the typical SUV commuter).

Assume those long-distance drivers average 60 miles per hour. That really penalizes the Boeing 747, since the SUV commuters are probably averaging more like 30 MPH.

So how many SUV hours does a Boeing 747 achieve carrying 524 passengers round-trip NY to London?
(The reason I focus on SUV hours rather than SUV miles is because a passenger vehicle will tend to produce the same amount of CO2 in a given time period regardless of the speed it is moving.)

524 SUVs * (2 * 3470 miles) / 60 miles per hour
= 60,609 SUV hours

So in the course of producing 440 tons of CO2:

Boeing 747 produces 60,609 SUV hours;

80 SUVs produce 41,600 SUV hours.

The Boeing 747 is a clear winner! It is nearly 50% more efficient than the 80 SUVs.

Of course, we can adjust our assumptions to make the Boeing 747 look worse and the 80 SUVs look better. Make the airplane fly at half capacity (a good assumption maybe 30 years ago, but not in any airplane I've flown in during the past decade or two). Double up the passengers in the SUVs (also not a good assumption if you look at rush hour traffic anywhere in the US).

Or we could make the SUVs look a lot worse by assuming 30 minute commutes each way instead of 60 minutes.

But the point is that those 80 SUVs stuck in rush hour traffic for a year would not do significantly better carrying passengers over long distances than the Boeing 747, and in fact almost certainly would do worse. The only way an SUV would do significantly better in terms of CO2 per passenger is by loading more people into the SUV for the road trip.

Even two people on a long road trip won't do tremendously better in terms of CO2 production than they would by flying. You will only do a lot better if you get 4 or more people in the SUV for the road trip.

But that sounds like hell on earth to me. It's hard enough doing a long road trip with one other sympatico soul. I did it once with 3 people, and I'll never do it again.

The point is that the original "same as 80 SUVs in commuter hell for a year" quotation is meaningless as it stands, since it is not clear what you are really comparing. It makes the airplane's CO2 production sound really bad, when the airplane's efficiency is in fact pretty good, compared with the alternative.

And what is the alternative, if you want to go from NY to London? Or any long distance, if you don't have 2 or 3 weeks to make the round-trip drive? One alternative is to stay at home in your basement. Or in your mom's basement.

NYCB may not have any science or engineering training. But he is certainly a tireless crank. Too bad we can't harness that energy for something useful.

comment #32

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Wells to Ebner: No way -- I've packed my laptop securely in my checked luggage before and had it damaged. No way in the world.

comment #33

Anonymous says ...

me to Wells - how about the bicycling idea, you wind bag? COME ON, we want it, you, the road, your laptop in a backpack, pedaling to toronto. you've got a month, leave tomorrow! reports from the road, those wacky nevadans and their love of ACCEPTED, how Utah sees THE ILLUSIONIST, snakes on the plains!!! c'mon jeff, put your legs where your green sympathies lie and ride with the wind!!!!!!

comment #34

nemo says ...

"According to the Edinburgh Centre for Carbon Management, a consulting company that advises businesses and governments on strategies to mitigate climate change, an average commercial flight in the United States releases nearly 1,800 pounds of greenhouse gas, per passenger, into the atmosphere."

The quotation continues at:

http://www.nrdc.org/onearth/05win/livgreen.asp

"This seems like an impossibly large number, since a commercial airplane carries only some 10,000 pounds of fuel. But when those exhaust molecules mix with oxygen, the impact soars."

It sure does sound impossible. That's because it is based on assumptions that are just plain wrong. Pull out your periodic table, and reason along.

The atomic weight of carbon is 12, of oxygen is 16. CO2 contains 2 oxygen atoms for each carbon atom.

Let's assume that the fuel is 100% carbon. This is not true, since it contains a hell of a lot of hydrogen that combines with oxygen in the air to form water vapor. But let's make the worst case assumption, which is that the fuel is 100% carbon.

If we burned 12,000 pounds of carbon, it would combine with 2 * 16,000 pounds of oxygen to form 44,000 pounds of CO2.

So if we burn 10,000 pounds of carbon, we would form (10/12) * 44,000 = 36,667 pounds of CO2.

So if the average commercial flight produces 1,800 pounds of CO2 per passenger, then the authors must be assuming that the average number of passengers on a commercial flight is:

36,667 pounds of CO2 per flight / 1,800 pounds per passenger
= 20.4 passengers per flight.

That is ridiculous. The only commercial flights I've been on in the last 20 years that had 20 or fewer passengers were a little puddle jumper from Minneapolis to Brainerd MN, and another puddle jumper from Los Alamos, NM to Albuquerque.

Even small flights from Cedar Rapids, Iowa to Chicago routinely carry 50 or 60 passengers or more. A Chicago to Denver flight carries 100 to 200, depending on the capacity of the plane.

And the airlines have pushed hard the last two decades to fill up their flights as much as possible. That 1,800 pounds of greenhouse gas per passenger per flight figure is wrong. It is probably based on a passenger capacity figure from the early 1970s, when airlines routinely ran flights that were 70% empty. Those were the days before expensive fuel and deregulation.

Even using the figures from that quotation, along with a more realistic assumption for number of passengers per 10,000 pounds of fuel (I would guess more like 100 passengers per flight on average), you get 1/5 the number of pounds of greenhouse gas per passenger per flight. And that's assuming the other figures in the quotation aren't wrong.

Flying is looking better and better all the time in terms of CO2 efficiency.

Did you know that 86% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

comment #35

The King says ...

Lifes a bitch Jeff!