WaPo calculated that Elon Musk flew 150,000 miles last year in his private jet. Let's calculate estimate his carbon footprint.
Musk flies in a Gulfstream G650 ER private jet, a top of the line airplane. It has a cruising speed of 890 km/hr. I'll assume this speed for all of his flying time, though of course it's lower during takeoffs and landings, or "short" trips at lower altitudes, etc. We're just doing an estimate here, a lower limit.
So Musk spent at least 271 hours flying privately last year. That's 11 days, or 3.1% of the year.
Musk may have flown with family and friends, but since the trip was being taken at his behest, he alone owns all the fuel burned and carbon emitted.
I couldn't find fuel data for the Gulfstream G650 ER, but did find this for the Gulfstream 400: fuel consumption of 32 liters/minute. Let's use that.
So Musk burned about 520,000 liters of jet fuel last year. That's 138,000 gallons, or 21% of the volume of an Olympic-sized swimming pool.
Jet fuel emits 9.57 kg CO2/gallon. I don't know about fuel for private jets, but let's use this figure for the estimate. I'll assume jet fuel has the same density as water.
So Musk's flying footprint for 2018 was 1.4 M kg CO2, or 1.3 kt (kilotonnes).
US per capita CO2 emissions are about 17 t CO2/yr, so Musk's total is equivalent to about 77 Americans.
But World per capita CO2 emissions are about 5 t CO2/yr, so Musk's emissions were equivalent to 263 average world citizens.
Note added 12:40 pm: I found an important number and can improve on this estimate some: the Gulfstream 650 burns 1,100 kg of jet fuel per hour. This brings Musk's flying carbon emissions for 2018 down to 750 tonnes of CO2, or 0.75 kilotonnes, which is like 44 average Americans or 150 average global citizens.
I do not know how to do the calculation, but I would love to see results like this converted in difference in average temperature by year 2100. I have a gut feel that the results would show that Musk's flying has a negligible impact on global warming.
Yup. I'm not sure the world would be better off if Musk eschewed modern technology.
David, EVERYONE's emissions have a "negligible" impact on global warming. This is a big part of the problem of getting people/countries to act. Dale Jamieson said, "Today we face the possibility that the global environment may be destroyed, yet no one will be responsible. This is a new problem."
BTW, the typical way these calculations are done is to use the relation that 1 Tt carbon (T=trillion; note, it's carbon, not CO2) creates 1.5 degC of warming, with error bars from 1.0 to 2.1. (I forget their statistical significance; I've written about this a few times, if you want to look.) This is what people use when they calculate how much carbon we can emit to stay below 1.5 C of warming, or 2.0 C, etc. Sure, that relation is about large, atmospherically significant amounts of carbon, but.
David - there are different degrees of negligible. As you say, any one action will have a negligible impact on global warming, but the combination may have a substantial impact. OTOH there are actions which even in combination will have a negligible impact. The traditional example is bailing out the Titanic with a teacup. I suspect that the impact of Musk's flying the the latter type of negligible.
With a revenue neutral carbon tax we could let the market find the optimal solution with no need to carbon shame anyone. And we could lower income and sales tax. Win/Win.
Layzej - I have heard others make this proposal, but I don't favor it. First of all, I don't think a new carbon tax would be revenue-neutral. I think the politicians would use it as an excuse to raise overall taxes.
Secondly, a big carbon tax would be a big problem for certain industries. Suppose there was a big carbon tax along with a big cut in federal income tax. These might net out in the aggregate, but their impact would be not be the same for all. E.g., energy-intensive industries, like aluminum and transportation, would have higher net costs. This change could affect their competitiveness with foreign companies.
It's not really reasonable to say you don't favour a revenue neutral carbon tax because you don't like something else. Revenue neutral carbon taxes have been successfully implemented elsewhere. You live in a democracy. The politicians will do what the people let/make them do.
Ultimately I think we need trade deals that penalize countries according to their emissions. Any country that would try to gain an economic advantage by shifting their costs to my country doesn't deserve fair access to my market.
David, if Musk's flying is "negligible," what is an example of a carbon emission(s) that isn't/aren't negligible? Where's the dividing line?
David, British Columbia has a revenue neutral carbon tax. I think I read that they were even able to reduce income taxes because of it. They give carve-outs or breaks to certain carbon intensive industries, I think.
The solution to foreign competitiveness is to put a carbon tax on imports. That will incentivize foreign countries to do the same, and thus incentivize everyone to work towards products and processes that emit less carbon. The magic of this is that only one major country needs to impose the import tax -- the other countries are then compelled to do the same.
Layzej, that's a really good video, thanks. I think I'll post it after I watch the entire thing.
In Oregon, which now has a Democratic supermajority in the legislature (and, of course, a Dem governor), the Democrats are now designing a cap-and-trade system. I think a carbon tax would be much more transparent to the citizenry, which is probably in part why they're NOT doing that. (A carbon tax in Washington failed on the November ballot.) Also CnT allows politicians to set knowable limits on emissions, which a carbon tax doesn't do unless you adjust it regularly, and what politician wants that in the news every year? Plus, a carbon tax contains the word "tax," and calling it a "fee" isn't any better. In polls people are saying more and more they're concerned about climate change, but time and again they demonstrate they don't want to do anything to address it.
what is an example of a carbon emission(s) that isn't/aren't negligible? Where's the dividing line? That's a good question, David. I have only a gut feel, because I haven't done the calculations. My gut feel is that everything currently contemplated is negligible, until we (hopefully) find an economical source of energy that can replace coal and oil.
2) nanny state regulations controlling everything from what light bulb you can purchase to what mileage your car needs to get.
Time for the opposition to put on their big boy pants and step up to the table with the market driven solution.
Layzej: Yes. Climate deniers, who are losing ground every year and won't be able to maintain their position forever, are ensuring they are excluded from the discussions of solutions, so they will get whatever solutions the rational people implement. Not very smart.
David: Depends what you mean by "economical." Does it include the ~$1T/yr subsidies to the fossil fuel industry and the damage done to future health and economies?
You are only looking at Elon Musk's jet fuel burn.
A more complete assessment would also measure the carbon dioxide produced by SpaceX and the carbon dioxide saved by Tesla vehicles.
What I mean be "economical" is "cheap enough so that the whole world will switch from coal and oil to this new energy source." The various international conferences have failed, because most people and most countries are not willing to switch to a form of energy that makes them poorer.
The world can hardly afford not to switch, but maybe we can sweep the costs under the rug for now and let our kids pay the piper.
David, again, you are ignoring the negative externalities of fossil fuels. Their cost is not insignificant.
What you pay for heat and gasoline is not just what's on your monthly bill or pump receipt. There is a cost both right now, and in the future. How are we to account for these costs other than pretending they don't exist?
EM: I take you point. But still, Musk could fly commercial. First class if he needs to be pampered.
Here's an example of another long-term problem that people don't confront: The huge government deficits will cause big economic problems. Can we convince poor people to give up welfare? Can we convince retirees to reduce their Social Security checks? Can we convince the ordinary taxpayers to desire higher taxes? I don't think so.
Maybe people and countries should accept major reductions in standard of living, but I don't think they're going to do so.
So people can't use their intelligence to understand a problem that's not right smack in their face?
I think it's much more likely that people are greedy and don't want to be told no.
Not exactly knowing the consequences is not a reason not to act. We don't know who might attack our country, but we keep a large, expensive military just in case.
Uncertainty is not a reason for inaction. None of us live our lives like that, and society doesn't either. Is it OK to smoke because it's uncertain if you'll develop lung cancer?
And there is no evidence that addressing AGW requires "major reductions in standard of living." None whatsoever.
And it's not at all certain that large deficits will cause major economic problems.
The US has had a large deficit since Reagan. Where are the large impacts?
David - I don't disagree with your word "greedy". I'm not advocating their behavior. I am saying that this is how they behave.
There are several types of impacts from the deficits. One is the increasing cost of interest on the national debt. This is eating up more and more of federal spending, leaving less for everything else. For all of fiscal 2018, net interest on the public debt rose by $62 billion to about $371 billion, according to the CBO's preliminary numbers. That's a 20 percent jump. The amount will continue to rise each year as the debt increases. It could sharply increase if prevailing interest rates went up. These rates have been relatively low for quite a while, but they're not guaranteed to remain low.
The second impact has not happened. It's the possibility that foreign lenders decide that lending money to the US is bad business --that loans will not paid back or that they'll be paid back in inflated dollars. If foreign banks make a sudden change in their lending patterns, that would cause a financial meltdown.
A third potential impact would be bad governmental decisions. As interest on the national debt rises, the government might choose to make up the difference by printing money. That could cause ruinous inflation or even destroy the value of the dollar. That's exactly what happened in Zimbabwe and Venezuela. I think this is unlikely in our country, but it can't be ruled out.
DiC: "The huge government deficits will cause big economic problems. Can we convince poor people to give up welfare? Can we convince retirees to reduce their Social Security checks? Can we convince the ordinary taxpayers to desire higher taxes? I don't think so."
Why not? We dealt with the federal deficit in Canada under a liberal government. There was a period after 2008 where the Conservative government went into deficit to reduce taxes and spend our way out of a recession (probably the right call), but they managed to get it back to $0.
Why can't the US do this? Why must the you wait for catastrophe?
DiC wrote: "The huge government deficits will cause big economic problems. Can we convince poor people to give up welfare? Can we convince retirees to reduce their Social Security checks? Can we convince the ordinary taxpayers to desire higher taxes? I don't think so."
We could certainly stop giving tax breaks to the wealthy, to the point were Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.
To answer Layzej's question, the reason the US can't contain its deficit and debt is because our government is run by the wealthy for the wealthy, and not by the people for the people.
Why can't there at least be a carbon tax on the wealthy? They emit most of the carbon anyway. Start with a hefty carbon tax on private jet fuel.
DiC suggests America can't possibly pay today for expenses incurred today. It's absurd. It's exactly why America can't act on climate. Your kids will curse your memory.
David -- thanks for those statistics. I find them surprising. Yet, I am not convinced that there's not a big problem. Look at the ratio of National Debt to GDP. https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287 It has been rising pretty rapidly in recent years. I believe it will continue to rise indefinitely. The people want low taxes and high government spending, so that's what successful politicians give them.
Layzej -- Your understanding of my comment is not what I intended to convey. I didn't mean to say American couldn't pay today for expenses incurred today. I meant to say that America is not going to choose to do so.
Your understanding of my comment is not what I intended to convey. I didn't mean to say American couldn't pay today for expenses incurred today. I meant to say that America is not going to choose to do so.
I understand perfectly. It is no less absurd - in fact it is more so.
It shows it coming to a peak of about 105%. Why is that a problem? It's been higher than that in the past, like after WW2, and it was paid down in part by (1) economic growth, and (2) higher taxes on the wealthy.
I didn't mean to say American couldn't pay today for expenses incurred today. I meant to say that America is not going to choose to do so.
You mean aren't voluntarily going to do so. Americans are already paying for climate change, via federal subsidies for the National Flood Insurance Program, federal payments after floods and hurricanes, projects to move homes from flood prone areas and dealing with sea level rise in places like Miami Beach. Not to mention health costs from fossil fuel tailpipe emissions.
These costs will only get larger.
David -- I hope you turn out to be right about the GNP. President Clinton switched our international lending from long-term bonds to short-term bonds. So far, this has been a successful strategy, because short-term bonds were cheaper. However, if prevailing interest rates were rise significantly, our interest payments would rise to the new level quickly, since the entire bond portfolio turns over quickly. I hope that this doesn't happen, and that the National Debt tops out at 105% of GDP.
But if necessary the US can always cover its debt by printing money. (Greece couldn't do that a few years ago when they were in trouble because they used the euro but couldn't print them.) It's not a perfect solution, but it means we can't go bankrupt.
And if it got to a point where there was trouble, what are US bond holders going to do? As J. Paul Getty said, If you owe the bank $100 that's your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem.
Nevertheless, I do think we should pay down some of the debt, and the time to do that is now, when the economy is good. But both Bush Jr and Trump, in this situation, instead gave the money to the wealthy and run up the debt. Republicans since Reagan always have. They only (pretend to) care about the deficit when the president is a Democrat.
David - a large portion of holders of US government bonds are foreign banks. They can stop lending to the US or charge higher rates or no longer lend in US dollars. Any of these could be a blow to our economy. Bear in mind that our debt portfolio turns over in a just a few years.
Neither party intends to pay down debt, although I agree with you that they should. Paying down debt means running a surplus. The federal government actually managed a modest surplus in the period 1998 -- 2001, although the debt increased in each of these years, for reasons I do not understand. The surplus was created by a standoff between Clinton and Gingrich along with an enormous boom. But, running a surplus going forward would require big spending cuts and big tax increases. Our politicians are not going to do that IMHO.