Empty skies proved that airports cause pollution.

[Robert Maxwell]

It's a council house. We can't sell it. And we were lucky to get it- we were squeezed into a flat for years before it became available.

My apologies, I didn't realize you were in public housing.

No problem! And you're no doubt right about the economic problems. I just want someone to come up with a solution and cut pollutants somehow, because people's health is too important to dismiss.

Put another way, this is just my "moan" thread for the time being . I would hope some of my other posts demonstrate I'm not taking myself too seriously here...

You could also make a sound argument that the economic benefits of a thriving air travel travel system more than offset the ill health effects on a relatively small number of people. While most people would say that individual lives and health are "too important" to sacrifice on the altar of economic efficiency, our actions tell an entirely different story.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

My apologies, I didn't realize you were in public housing.

No problem! And you're no doubt right about the economic problems. I just want someone to come up with a solution and cut pollutants somehow, because people's health is too important to dismiss.

Put another way, this is just my "moan" thread for the time being . I would hope some of my other posts demonstrate I'm not taking myself too seriously here...

You could also make a sound argument that the economic benefits of a thriving air travel travel system more than offset the ill health effects on a relatively small number of people. While most people would say that individual lives and health are "too important" to sacrifice on the altar of economic efficiency, our actions tell an entirely different story.

Well, the actions of all those refusing to seriously consider cutting back because of economic concerns, yes. If these people were suddenly among that small number "sacrificed" they wouldn't be so happy. As usual, it's all fine with people as long as it isn't them...apart from those of us who actually want it stopped, not merely "stopped in regards to myself".

And of course, those who do suffer health problems are those too poor to actually make use of the air travel on anything like a regular basis.

Plus I personally consider keeping the air clean and non-poisonous to be more important than boosting the life-styles of some at the expense of others. If those economic benefits were truly meaningful to those living with intense levels of pollution, they'd be able to easily move away from the pollution. The fact that there's a problem in the first place seems to shut down attempts at justification, in my mind.

 

[John Picard]

My apologies, I didn't realize you were in public housing.

No problem! And you're no doubt right about the economic problems. I just want someone to come up with a solution and cut pollutants somehow, because people's health is too important to dismiss.

Put another way, this is just my "moan" thread for the time being . I would hope some of my other posts demonstrate I'm not taking myself too seriously here...

You could also make a sound argument that the economic benefits of a thriving air travel travel system more than offset the ill health effects on a relatively small number of people. While most people would say that individual lives and health are "too important" to sacrifice on the altar of economic efficiency, our actions tell an entirely different story.

It can also be argued that the social cost is greater overall than the short term gains of the thriving air travel system.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

No problem! And you're no doubt right about the economic problems. I just want someone to come up with a solution and cut pollutants somehow, because people's health is too important to dismiss.

Put another way, this is just my "moan" thread for the time being . I would hope some of my other posts demonstrate I'm not taking myself too seriously here...

You could also make a sound argument that the economic benefits of a thriving air travel travel system more than offset the ill health effects on a relatively small number of people. While most people would say that individual lives and health are "too important" to sacrifice on the altar of economic efficiency, our actions tell an entirely different story.

It can also be argued that the social cost is greater overall than the short term gains of the thriving air travel system.

Yup. I am, of course, playing devil's advocate here. I don't think air pollution is a good thing at all, but evidently most of us are willing to live with it as long as it doesn't inconvenience us too much, and as long as the people who are adversely affected by it don't have too much voice to agitate against it.

The problem you have, though, is that you can't just go stick an airport out in the boonies again. People who have to travel a lot will gravitate toward living in that area, and you'll have the same problem again in a few decades. Transportation is a major factor in people's decisions on where to live. You move the airports, people will just move with them--and they'll still complain about the pollution.

I wonder if we have reached a point of diminishing returns with the concepts of large airports and large planes. Might a larger number of smaller airports with smaller planes actually be less polluting overall? This would piss off the people who prefer nonstop flights, but perhaps it would be less polluting. In any case, you would certainly have less concentrated pollution from airports.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

The problem you have, though, is that you can't just go stick an airport out in the boonies again. People who have to travel a lot will gravitate toward living in that area, and you'll have the same problem again in a few decades. Transportation is a major factor in people's decisions on where to live. You move the airports, people will just move with them--and they'll still complain about the pollution.

Quite true of course.

Naturally, though I'm most concerned about those who don't get to make a decision where they live. When you're dependent on council housing, you can't pick and choose, particularly with a housing shortage.

Your "less-concentrated pollution-smaller airports" suggestion sounds reasonable to me, until we can find healthier alternatives or start phasing out non-essential flying.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

The problem you have, though, is that you can't just go stick an airport out in the boonies again. People who have to travel a lot will gravitate toward living in that area, and you'll have the same problem again in a few decades. Transportation is a major factor in people's decisions on where to live. You move the airports, people will just move with them--and they'll still complain about the pollution.

Quite true of course.

Naturally, though I'm most concerned about those who don't get to make a decision where they live. When you're dependent on council housing, you can't pick and choose, particularly with a housing shortage.

Your "less-concentrated pollution-smaller airports" suggestion sounds reasonable to me, until we can find healthier alternatives or start phasing out non-essential flying.

But why is there a housing shortage in your area? Could it be due to a proximity to an airport? Anything that makes a particular area a travel hub will also attract many accompanying businesses. You see this phenomenon in any city that's a travel center. There are economic benefits over and above the actual bottom line of the airport/seaport/whatever. Businesses congregate there because it means tourism, easier access to supply lines, denser population (more customers!)

The more I think about this problem, the harder it appears to solve. Without a concerted effort to socially-engineer the problem out of existence, I see little chance it will go away on its own! But there will surely be unintended consequences, too.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

But why is there a housing shortage in your area?

Well, while I represent a 0.2 on the Economic-Awareness scale of 1 to 10, I think the whole country has a housing shortage. Our population density is absurd.

The more I think about this problem, the harder it appears to solve. Without a concerted effort to socially-engineer the problem out of existence, I see little chance it will go away on its own! But there will surely be unintended consequences, too.

Yeah, you're right. The major problem is always simply that no-one is ever willing to make a concerted effort to socially-engineer a problem away, even when it's ten times as serious as this one (so this one, which is relatively minor, has no chance).

 

[John Picard]

The problem you have, though, is that you can't just go stick an airport out in the boonies again. People who have to travel a lot will gravitate toward living in that area, and you'll have the same problem again in a few decades. Transportation is a major factor in people's decisions on where to live. You move the airports, people will just move with them--and they'll still complain about the pollution.

Quite true of course.

Naturally, though I'm most concerned about those who don't get to make a decision where they live. When you're dependent on council housing, you can't pick and choose, particularly with a housing shortage.

Your "less-concentrated pollution-smaller airports" suggestion sounds reasonable to me, until we can find healthier alternatives or start phasing out non-essential flying.

For the longest time, I've thought it ridiculous that Hydrogen was being viewed as a cure-all for a fuel. The main problems with Hydrogen, Natural Gas, and the like are that they have to be transported in a cylinder because that's the only shape that is strong enough to withstand the pressure required. The cylindrical shape takes up too much space in vehicles as either the trunk of a car or the bed of a pickup have to house it.

Well, I just read an article where a company working in carbon fiber overcame that with a honeycomb style design of making a tank that can hold Hydrogen. Literally, the frame of the vehicle can be constructed so as also to act as the fuel storage, and currently the range of a car using this technology would have a range of almost 200 miles. With carbon fiber development progressing, I am now optimistic of a future where society will be able to use Hydrogen for fuel. This is very exciting and I hope it happens during my lifetime.

 

[Canadave]

Your "less-concentrated pollution-smaller airports" suggestion sounds reasonable to me, until we can find healthier alternatives or start phasing out non-essential flying.

The problem I see here is that while, say, one Dash 8 produces fewer emissions than one 737, it also seats less than half the passengers. So might we just end up with more planes, polluting less individually, but as much or more overall? I think there is a case for efficiency to be made when it comes to this issue as well.

 

[PlixTixiplik]

That's not necessarily true. There could still be all sorts of things wrong with your lungs that you're not aware of. Things that are even difficult to diagnose that have no immediate physiological presentations.

Well I doubt you could claim the airport helps, even if it isn't the ultimate cause.

Unless you're living right inside the airport I'm thinking the impact is probably fairly small. How many PPB of pollutants are in the air in your house x miles from the airport? Probably very few.

It's actually more than you would think. The pollution plume from freeways extends more than 1.5 miles, significantly increasing the risk of premature birth, asthma, and cancer. The significant health impacts of airports probably extend a mile or two away from the actual site as well.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Your "less-concentrated pollution-smaller airports" suggestion sounds reasonable to me, until we can find healthier alternatives or start phasing out non-essential flying.

The problem I see here is that while, say, one Dash 8 produces fewer emissions than one 737, it also seats less than half the passengers. So might we just end up with more planes, polluting less individually, but as much or more overall? I think there is a case for efficiency to be made when it comes to this issue as well.

Yeah, that's why I was wondering at what point you'd see a diminishing return. We can't keep making airplanes bigger and bigger--sooner or later, the fuel efficiency drops off.

So, if that Dash 8 holds half as many passengers as a 737, but uses 1/4 the fuel, you have an efficiency gain. If it uses 2/3 the fuel, however, that's a bad deal.

 

[Lindley]

I wonder if we have reached a point of diminishing returns with the concepts of large airports and large planes. Might a larger number of smaller airports with smaller planes actually be less polluting overall? This would piss off the people who prefer nonstop flights, but perhaps it would be less polluting. In any case, you would certainly have less concentrated pollution from airports.

There's already a very large number of small airports scattered around. Many of them just don't have commercial flights, or if they do, they're little 8-seaters.

There are enough airports around with 5000+ foot runways that increasing the count of mid-size turboprops would be pretty doable, if an economic/environmental case could be made.

You still need the huge airports for the transcontinental and transoceanic flights, of course.