this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2024
364 points (99.2% liked)

World News

39102 readers
2275 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Air New Zealand has abandoned a 2030 goal to cut its carbon emissions, blaming difficulties securing more efficient planes and sustainable jet fuel.

The move makes it the first major carrier to back away from such a climate target.

The airline added it is working on a new short-term target and it remains committed to an industry-wide goal of achieving net zero emissions by 2050.

The aviation industry is estimated to produce around 2% of global carbon dioxide emissions, which airlines have been trying to reduce with measures including replacing older aircraft and using fuel from renewable sources.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I really hate excusing billionaires in their private jets, but you could argue they do not have the money to make a difference in this case.

Technology improves efficiency as time goes on but the biggest change under airline control is switching over to biofuel so at least the carbon emissions are currently active carbon rather than adding carbon that had been sequestered for hundreds of millions of years. So biofuel exists and I believe has been approved, perhaps even internationally, however not much is made and it’s expensive. Private jets can’t spend enough to change that. We need commitments from major airlines to spend enough to invent biofuel scaling way up, and we almost certainly need government and international pressure or encouragement.

Of course that avoids the argument whether private jets are an excess the greater we can afford. And that avoids the argument that the rest of us need investments in rail so we have an alternative

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

No matter the type of fuel, you're taking carbon and releasing it at altitude, it's much better for the environment to burn that fuel at ground level if that's what you're going to do with it.

I know it's hard to accept but air traffic is just unsustainable as long as it's done using fossil fuel.