>>1397990Below we can find the pollution figures (which are assumptions) of the European Environment Agency report (EEA):
42 g CO2 / passenger/km for a small car
285 g CO2 /passenger/km for a plane
And my point is also that people who take a plane travel on average much farther than they would ever do if they didn't have a plane available. This means that on average they pollute three times more by going on vacation with an airplane (compared to what they would pollute if no airplane were available).
And why do you always keep talking about 'cleaner'? What do you think would happen if I let you drink 'clean' cyanide? Kerosene can contain up to 3000 ppm sulfur (0.3% by weight), but in practice it is usually between 400 and 800 ppm. (For petrol and diesel oil for cars, the limit is 10ppm). All diesel, which is now sold for cars has been made virtually sulfur-free. But this does not apply to kerosene. There are also particles that come from incomplete combustion of the same kerosene.
In addition, flying (especially the unbridled growth) has increasingly serious disadvantages for the climate.
And are you really going to claim that an aircraft engine does not need a filter when it brings huge amounts of S02 and soot into the air? Is a soot filter not a filter? A few more answers and then you have reached the pinnacle of ridicule.
Aviation fuel is legally exempt from taxes when it arrives in a plane at an international destination, thanks to a 1944 global agreement. Is this what you mean by 'strict regulation'?
And you don't seem to understand what I mean by 'odors'. The toxic emissions released by aircrafts contain volatile organic compounds or VOC’s and nitrogen oxides which pose a serious threat to human health. These pollutants are very smelly and constant exposure to them can cause severe headache as well as respiratory problems. Aviation emissions are transmitted in the form of sprays which even our lungs cannot filter out.
