T1B

teacher

Roach wrote: ↑Mon Apr 25, 2022 3:39 pm Why do 1st class seats go four times more carbon than Economy ?

And I wonder who funds Clear.

Roach wrote: ↑Mon Apr 25, 2022 3:39 pm Why do 1st class seats go four times more carbon than Economy ?

And I wonder who funds Clear.

Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Tue Apr 26, 2022 12:41 am

Roach wrote: ↑Mon Apr 25, 2022 3:39 pm Why do 1st class seats go four times more carbon than Economy ?

And I wonder who funds Clear.

I think it is a fucking disgrace you have to confess your sins to the federal government and pay out of pocket to qualify for 15 minutes less time waiting in security at airports. US airport security should be less shitty instead.

Left Seater wrote: ↑Mon Apr 25, 2022 2:11 pm Ok, so some guy came into our office las week and tried to get us to purchase large amounts of carbon offsets for all of our flights. I explained what we do and that he needed to be speaking to the owners of the jets we fill in on. He then pivoted to selling us offsets for just our seat on each flight. He said he could calculate it down to that level. I asked him for his math. I then compared that to Clear.eco which some have called the gold standard of offsetting your carbon footprint when traveling. Of course the guy was substantially higher. He couldn't explain that and the meeting ended soon after.

This got me thinking and I wondered how he and these other online sites calculate their number for offsets. So let's work thru an example and yall can peer review my work.

Short bus riders and those on ADHD meds should punch out now.

First off, let's look at a long flight where the majority of the fuel capacity will be consumed. This will allow us to assume all but the required reserve of fuel was consumed. For this flight, let's take the American Airlines Dallas to Hong Kong flight operated by one of their 777-300ERs.

This plane has the following seating arrangement:

First Class - 8 seats
Business Class - 52 seats
Premium Economy -28 seats
Main Cabin Extra - 28 seats
Economy - 188 seats

Source - https://seatguru.com/airlines/American_ ... 53bee88290

The plane has 47.890 gallon fuel capacity.

Source - https://aerocorner.com/aircraft/boeing- ... c687dfca57

Jet A is approx 81% carbon.

Source - Looking for a source for this knowledge. But since I don't yet have one I am going to assume all of the fuel weight is carbon.

Finally, I went to Clear.eco and put in the flight info for Dallas to Hong Kong. It offered the following offsets per seat by cabin type in tons of CO2:

First class - 8.15
Business - 5.91
Premium Economy - 3.26
Main Cabin Extra - 3.26
Economy - 2.04

Source - https://clear.eco/cart/

Ok, those are the baseline numbers. Now for some assumptions.

1) Let's assume that the flight consumes all but 5% of the fuel and that the tanks were full when it left Dallas.

= 47,890 gallons x .95% = 45,496 gallons of Jet A consumed.

2) Let's also assume that all of the fuel was completely combusted.

3) Let's also assume that all of the weight of the fuel is carbon. (Carbon is much heavier than Hydrogen and Oxygen which are also present in Jet A.)

= 45496 gallons of Jet A x 6.7 pounds per gallon = 304823 lbs of Jet A
Divide by 2000 lbs to get a weight in tons

=304823 divided by 2000 lbs = 153 tones rounded

So there are 153 tons of carbon in Jet A on the flight

Carbon atomic weight is 12.0107
Oxygen atomic weight is 15.9994

So each carbon goes from a pre combustion weight of 12.0107 to a post combustion weight of = 12.0107 + (15.9994 x 2) = 44.1058

So each carbon gets 3.6722 times heavier after combustion when it combines with Oxygen.

=44.1058 divided by 12.0107 = 3.6722 times heavier

So if we take the carbon weight of the Jet A uncombusted from our flight of 153 tons and multiply by 3.6722 that should be the offset we need to purchase to cover this flight.

= 153 tons x 3.6722 = 561.8466 tons to offset

But now go back to the gold standard of carbon offsetting for travel and add each of those offset values x the number of seats in that cabin.

First = 8 seats x 8.15 tons per seat = 65.2 tons
Business = 52 seats x 5.91 tons per seat = 307.32 tons
Premium Economy = 28 seats x 3.26 tons per seat = 91.28 tons
Main Cabin Extra = 28 seats x 3.26 tons per seat = 91.28 tons
Economy = 188 seats x 2.04 tons per seat = 383.52 tons

Add those and you get the following

= 65.2 + 307.32 + 91.28 + 91.28 + 383.52 = 938.6 tons

Why the difference?

=938.6 divided by 561.8466 = 1.67

Why are the offsets inflated by a factor of 1.67?

Any errors here that you can point out? Please do so. But these also clearly lean towards the offset sites number in the assumptions I have made.

Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Tue Apr 26, 2022 12:41 am
I think it is a fucking disgrace you have to confess your sins to the federal government and pay out of pocket to qualify for 15 minutes less time waiting in security at airports. US airport security should be less shitty instead.

schmick wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 3:04 am California should be capturing what rain and snow fall it gets.
If tree huggers are so concerned with the ocean levels rising, why do they demand that all of the rain and snow run off run in to the oceans?

Capture all of the water, return it to reservoirs and lakes, pump it in to the ground to increase the water table

And if they're going to continue to send so much alfalfa and almonds and other produce to Asia, irrigate those fields with desalinated water

schmick wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 3:11 am I dont eat fish, you may as well ask me if I was against watering soccer fields....because I'd ban soccer in a heart beat


I am also perfectly fine with getting rid of all the wineries along the central coast and returning those hill sides to natural grasses for cattle. Then maybe we can get some of those steak houses down here

Left Seater wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 1:49 pm Desalination is expensive, and most of the cost comes from energy expenses. It also produces brine which has to be dealt with.

But if the greenies want to keep us from using surface water, then there aren’t many other options.

schmick wrote: ↑Wed May 04, 2022 12:20 am

Mikey wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 5:12 am

schmick wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 3:11 am I dont eat fish, you may as well ask me if I was against watering soccer fields....because I'd ban soccer in a heart beat


I am also perfectly fine with getting rid of all the wineries along the central coast and returning those hill sides to natural grasses for cattle. Then maybe we can get some of those steak houses down here

The grasses aren’t “natural.” Neither are the cattle.

The wild grasses, I'm not talking about the St Augustine and Ryegrass that are in your lawn. Knock down all the grapes and the water used for the wine, which I don't drink and put grazing cattle up on those hillsides so we can get a Hitching Post down here

schmick wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 9:25 pm That shit read like all gore propaganda. No doubt that paper was funded by sierra club or some other bunch of tyrannical marxist assholes that just want to control everyone and everything. Driving your car om the freeway deposits carbon dioxide on the hill side and that carbon dioxide is killing the native plants and making these evil European plants thrive..... didn't that fat fuck mikey moore, that you guys all worship, say the same thing about the push to fear "African bees"?

Fountain Grass readily moves in to wild areas and displaces the native plants that would otherwise provide habitat for the birds, butterflies, lizards, and multitude of other creatures that make their homes in this wonderful place we call California. Its shallow roots don’t stabilize slopes like many of the native plants it displaces. It is more flammable than the native vegetation, and over a longer period of the year, so contributes to more frequent wildfires (as do many other exotic plants, including Mexican Feather Grass, Pampas Grass, Vinca, Lantana and Pride of Madeira). When fires occur too frequently, areas of chaparral and coastal sage scrub get converted to weed fields as the native plants don’t have enough time to recover between fires.