Mark points it out correctly. The overall value counts for the environment.

Since the beginning of the jet age, big passenger planes made overall efficiency improvements or approx 50%. That's from the very first jet planes up to the most current ones like 787 and A380.
So please tell me how the 1990 technology, which already includes the modern things like 777 and A330 planes, should ever be able to counteract that impact happening in just 20 years.

Maybe it helps to see that e. g. New York grew from 7.8 million to 8.2 million people, while, within the same time span, the amount if people over New York went up x2.3!
Mother Earth still does not care if you've improved efficiency on a single plane (while the passenger count goes up as shown), that's pure company and advertisement thinking, guys. Well done, PR branches!

I might add, as a side note, that it may not be too clever to ask the guys actually selling planes about the environmental impact they might have while expecting useful/valid answers. However, that may add to the 'awareness' people aim for.  :(


The problem with some environmental awareness isn't the data basis. The data is there, no one can really hide it and rather simple maths show numbers like the ones above.

Now, an industry isn't interested in that awareness taking place in people's minds. The bias is 'earn money!' and any passenger in doubt about the environmental impact of his not so important journey has to be avoided. So, nowadays, everything comes with a friendly green image plus promoting the 'right' data, while leaving out the more obvious one. As if trees would start growing when you park (and run) a modern plane in front of them.  ;D
And, at the same time, people aren't really interested to care about this and that when they can have an industry that tells them that 'everything is fine'. Qui bono?  ::)
Lobbyists and PR work are vital parts of a big money business, so it's not only about the products. You may guess why.

I don't blame people in general, that would be unfair and too cross-the-board alike. But I'm really surprised when some guys (with access to data) fail to realize or even defend some naive fallacy of theirs. However, maybe I can learn something from that behaviour.  :)

As Peter shows, there is hope.

Quote:

The consideration for SST's won't be so much environmental concerns as economics.