zlacker

>>Brajes+(OP)
Also, don't forget about air travel, especially private airplanes, something that is on the rise (e.g Netjets). Often the virtues of world travel are extolled as a way to learn about the world and bring people together etc. Except, it's extraordinarily carbon intensive and honestly doesn't do any of that IMO. Sure, seeing the Patagonia in person would be cool and all, but if I actually cared about it, I wouldn't go. I would admire it from afar to help preserve it. It's time to start travel shaming and discourage people from flying around just to get a selfie.

>>zw1234+RE
Electric airplanes are becoming a real thing, at least for regional travel.

>>Gud+xH
For long-range high-capacity passenger (or cargo) travel, electric airplanes will always be a pipe dream. Battery storage capacities are too low, as well as lacking the fuel-burn-off characteristics of fuel-powered aircraft: half a long-range flight's takeoff weight is fuel, and for distances > ~3000 km, each passenger burns roughly their mass in fuel. The carbon dioxide emissions are actually greater than this as CO2 includes two oxygen atoms contributed from the atmosphere.

Mind that long-range flights are also overall more efficient,[1] as they have a longer low-fuel-burn cruise-phase, as contrasted with take-off and climb, which consume tremendous amounts of fuel.

For ranges at which electric-powered aircraft are applicable, ground-based transport (e.g., electrified, preferably high-speed rail) are even more optimal, though there are cases (e.g., inter-island travel, remote low-population regions) which might not suit those. Those tend to be outlier and marginal cases already, however.

________________________________

Notes:

1. On a fuel/passenger-km or cargo-kg-km basis. Though the large overall distance makes for prodigious fuel burn regardless.