Air Freight Greenhouse Gas Emissions Up 25% Since 2019, Analysis Finds 33
Air freight operators have increased their greenhouse gas emissions by 25% compared to 2019, according to a report [PDF] by campaign group Stand.earth. The analysis found that operators ran about 300,000 more flights in 2023 than in 2019, a 30% increase in volume. The United States accounted for over 40% of global air freight emissions. The Guardian adds: FedEx and UPS were responsible for 24.7% of the industry's carbon emissions in 2023. It is estimated that 99.8% of aviation fuel is produced from fossil fuels, with the scaling of low carbon replacements a distant prospect. Research published last year forecast that global annual parcel volume could increase to 800bn parcels a year by 2030 [PDF], compared with 315bn in 2022.
Not surprising (Score:3)
All that crap we keep buying has to be moved somehow. Last I checked, railroads don't cross the ocean and can't get across the country in a few hours.
Re: (Score:3)
It used to be you actually had to plan your life almost a week ahead for supplies, the current trend is just wasteful.
Re: (Score:2)
A week is irrelevant here. Amazon should be able to project their stock sufficiently to ensure a new supply arrives via ship or train in the case of inland goods without having to worry about what individuals need.
You may need that toothbrush now instead of planning a week ahead, but Amazon should be able to trend that you need that toothbrush every 3 months and have it ready for you.
You first (Score:2)
OK. I;m willing to reduce my purchases of products shipped by air freight if government at all levels a) determines the amount of things they buy/ship by air freight, b) calculate the pollution shipping that air freight causes, c) reduces their air freight shipping related pollution by 10% for 10 years.
After that, I'm good reducing my pollution due to air freight.
The biggest polluters on the planet need to make significant reductions in pollution before passing a law to force me to do the same while loweri
Kill air freight! WAHHHHH! (Score:2)
Now do all the calculations on the fuel consumed and emissions created by terrestrial delivery.
Cars, trucks, boats, trains, etc.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Ships and trains are startlingly efficient. Trucks, meh, but still better than airplanes. A lot better.
https://www.cbo.gov/publicatio... [cbo.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Trains are now doing more long distance deliveries, e.g. you can ship from China to Germany by train now. Geopolitics are the issue, as ever.
Re: (Score:1)
Okay, show me shipping from Bangor Maine to McMurdo AIrbase.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately we're using those trains and ships to move the oil and gas we were previously pumping through pipelines..
Sounds like a case of unintended consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on the oil, using a train isn't such a bad idea. You can't pump bitumen through a pipe, you have to dilute it until it's about 90% dilution fluid. Then at the end you have to separate it again and send the fluid back. Or you can just load it in a train car.
Supply chain issues (Score:4, Informative)
Not surprising in the slightest. With global supply chain issues what they are there's been a lot of pressure to reduce delivery times. Cutting a few weeks by air freighting parts helps deal with already irate customers.
Re: (Score:2)
There's also the wars in Ukraine and Palestine. Now flights have to route around Russia and more of the Middle East, which means more emissions to get from A to B.
I used to fly up over Siberia when going back and forth between the UK and Japan. Now I go south over Georgia and China, then a little detour around North Korea, and over Greenland on the way back. Adds about 3-4 hours to the journey.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not wrong there. It's far faster now to fly with China Southern than British Airways when getting from the UK to Japan. Some airlines still happily fly over warzones.
Re: (Score:2)
China Southern isn't flying over Ukraine though, they go over Russia. China is friendly with Russia, i.e. not actively arming Ukraine or blocking Russian flights from Chinese airspace, so they can go that way.
I went with BA a few times but it was always a bad experience. These days I go with ANA or JAL. The service on ANA is better but JAL isn't terrible. I thought about going via Beijing because it was a lot cheaper, but decided to use my airmiles instead. Maybe next year. I went via Korea once too, but th
Re: (Score:2)
No I didn't. But not being completely correct guessing a number doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Having not done a study myself I actually expect me to think of a number greater than zero and be off slightly.
Ration air miles (Score:2)
Fine, let's go back to sail. (Score:2)
Fine, let's go back to sail. You willing to wait months, or a year, for your widget to come from Glorious Overseas Factory #3? If it gets here at all? Sail is at the sea's mercy in a way steam / diesel isn't.
"It'll get here when it gets here" doesn't ahem.... fly.. with the last couple of "gimmie nao nao NAO WAAH" generations.
Re: (Score:2)
Fine, let's go back to sail. You willing to wait months, or a year, for your widget to come from Glorious Overseas Factory #3? If it gets here at all? Sail is at the sea's mercy in a way steam / diesel isn't.
We could use nuclear powered cargo ships.
https://www.world-nuclear-news... [world-nuclear-news.org]
Nuclear powered aircraft carriers emit no CO2 and can reach speed "in excess of 30 knots". The true capabilities of any US Navy vessel will often be kept a closely guarded secret even for decades after a ship is decommissioned since that can reveal current capabilities of operational ships by comparison. Getting a ship as big as an aircraft carrier to move that fast isn't exactly trivial but it's not all that difficult either. We'v
Re: (Score:2)
Rapid efuel expansion would be limited by CO2 availability. DAC is expensive, bioenergy+capture is a near suicidal sabotage scam by fossil fuel and forestry lobbyists (lookin at you IAE). The only way to scale CO2 cheapy is capturing it from sources which will not be there long before 2050 if the west gets serious with net zero, a risky investment.
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually the older generations driving this, they're they ones who've never had to do anything difficult.
Sea (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Boats are too clean now and don't generate enough particles to bounce the solar rays so the planet is warming up because of that, there was a Slashdot article posted about this very topic just a while ago.
Re: (Score:2)
They could go back to clipper ships for Tea Bags and T-shirts.
Or at least a sail assisted cargo ship
Re: (Score:2)
We can, and we do. This has nothing to do with the rise in air freight. The world moves a *lot* of goods, and many of them ad hoc, and many of them critical. I once escorted an order for an item on a private jet because we needed it !NOW! as it was causing millions of dollars of loss a day. With global supply chain disruptions putting traditional stock for industrial parts at risk due to uncertain lead times (I was quoted over a year to get a certain temperature transmitter at one point, they used to have a
Re: (Score:2)
Because some bean counters came up with the idea of just in time manufacturing and delivering. There is barely anything stocked in warehouses anymore.
Go after private jets and yachts first (Score:2)
That would require politicians bite the hand that feeds them.
more air fright (Score:2)
see subject