[Outcast_Searcher]

As of March 1st, Delta Air claims it will go "fully carbon neutral". Oh, and that's WITHOUT relying on carbon offsets.

“We will continue to use jet fuel for as far as the eye can see,” Bastian said. “We’ll be investing in technologies to reduce the impact of jet fuel, But I don’t ever see a future where we’ll eliminate jet fuel from our footprint.”

Though Bastian stressed the company won’t rely on carbon-offset programs, though it has purchased some in the past.

“Carbon offsets are not the solution, we need to be investing in projects that make a difference,” he said. “That’s not really helping our planet.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/14/delta-a ... month.html

I see NO specifics on changing ANYTHING in the article, except a commitment to spend a $billion over the next decade to "reduce environmental impact" on engines and carbon removal.

...

Now, my TOTAL BS meter is ringing loudly. Given the amount of carbon a single flight emits PER PASSENGER, I can't see how a big airline like this could TRULY go FULLY CARBON NEUTRAL WITHOUT ANY CARBON OFFSETS, if they spent, say, $20 billion on carbon projects?

I notice via a quick search that I'm not the only one who is skeptical. I also noticed Delta is, and has been, doing a lot of MARKETING on this topic, even as they spew a horrendous amount of CO2 into the atmosphere daily. (If empty claims did the trick, the Paris Climate Accords would be a fantastic thing instead of a political can kicking exercise).

https://viewfromthewing.com/delta-claim ... skeptical/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -in-a-year

[asg70]

I just thought about this off-hand but the only way I can think of to offset jet fuel would be to setup carbon capture plants (how that actually would work I don't know) powered by renewables. So for every molecule of CO2 emitted by jet fuel, pull it back OUT of the air by these scrubbers. Plants alone wouldn't do it because they are too slow. This gets around the problem of batteries not being dense enough to power jets. The cost and land requirements to do this would be prohibitive, of course. There's also no incentive at present to "waste" energy solely on CO2-scrubbing. Most will say the electricity generated for scrubbing would be better spent sent into the grid, especially since the grid is still largely powered by fossil fuels anyway.

[Outcast_Searcher]

I just thought about this off-hand but the only way I can think of to offset jet fuel would be to setup carbon capture plants (how that actually would work I don't know) powered by renewables. So for every molecule of CO2 emitted by jet fuel, pull it back OUT of the air by these scrubbers. Plants alone wouldn't do it because they are too slow. This gets around the problem of batteries not being dense enough to power jets. The cost and land requirements to do this would be prohibitive, of course. There's also no incentive at present to "waste" energy solely on CO2-scrubbing. Most will say the electricity generated for scrubbing would be better spent sent into the grid, especially since the grid is still largely powered by fossil fuels anyway.

Yup. I've read articles on how such plants are now feasible, by using lots of energy, fans, and chemical reactions to actively pull CO2 out of the air. Not cheap yet, but getting cheaper. The problem with that though, from what I know, is that a billion is a PITTANCE compared to what it would cost to go fully carbon neutral without any carbon offsets, given how much CO2 a large airline company spews into the atmosphere DAILY, much less over a decade.

Now, of course, they may be assuming fantastic cost savings over time, like Tesla fanbois tend to do. And then if those aren't realized, the marketing spin is, "well, at least we tried".

I suppose that's the best we can expect from an industry that exists by producing a TREMENDOUS amount of atmospheric CO2, whatever spin they care to try.