Google Changed Emission Calculations in Google Flights, Making Air Travel Look Cleaner (bbc.com) 31
"Google launched a carbon emissions tool for its flight tracker last fall," remembers Gizmodo, "allowing consumers to see the individual emissions created by each flight they were browsing..."
"But last month the tech giant quietly shifted the algorithm to exclude a crucial component of the overall greenhouse gas impact of air travel."
The BBC reports: Flights now appear to have much less impact on the environment than before. "Google has airbrushed a huge chunk of the aviation industry's climate impacts from its pages" says Dr Doug Parr, chief scientist of Greenpeace. With Google hosting nine out of every 10 online searches, this could have wide repercussions for people's travel decisions.
The company said it made the change following consultations with its "industry partners".
It affects the carbon calculator embedded in the company's "Google Flights" search tool.... [I]n July, Google decided to exclude all the global warming impacts of flying except CO2. Some experts say Google's calculations now represent just over half of the real impact on the climate of flights. "It now significantly understates the global impact of aviation on the climate", says Professor David Lee of Manchester Metropolitan University, the author of the most comprehensive scientific assessment of the contribution of air travel to global warming.
Flying affects the climate in lots of ways in addition to the CO2 produced by burning aviation fuel. These include the creation of long thin clouds high up in the atmosphere — known as contrails — which trap heat radiated by the Earth, leading to a net warming effect on our planet. These additional warming impacts mean that although aviation is only responsible for around 2% of global CO2 emissions, the sector is actually responsible for around 3.5% of the warming caused by human activity.
"But last month the tech giant quietly shifted the algorithm to exclude a crucial component of the overall greenhouse gas impact of air travel."
The BBC reports: Flights now appear to have much less impact on the environment than before. "Google has airbrushed a huge chunk of the aviation industry's climate impacts from its pages" says Dr Doug Parr, chief scientist of Greenpeace. With Google hosting nine out of every 10 online searches, this could have wide repercussions for people's travel decisions.
The company said it made the change following consultations with its "industry partners".
It affects the carbon calculator embedded in the company's "Google Flights" search tool.... [I]n July, Google decided to exclude all the global warming impacts of flying except CO2. Some experts say Google's calculations now represent just over half of the real impact on the climate of flights. "It now significantly understates the global impact of aviation on the climate", says Professor David Lee of Manchester Metropolitan University, the author of the most comprehensive scientific assessment of the contribution of air travel to global warming.
Flying affects the climate in lots of ways in addition to the CO2 produced by burning aviation fuel. These include the creation of long thin clouds high up in the atmosphere — known as contrails — which trap heat radiated by the Earth, leading to a net warming effect on our planet. These additional warming impacts mean that although aviation is only responsible for around 2% of global CO2 emissions, the sector is actually responsible for around 3.5% of the warming caused by human activity.
Dupe-di-dupe-di-dupe-dupe (Score:4, Informative)
Also, again: "Be evil" is apparently only a small stepf from "Don't be evil"....
Re: (Score:2)
All you need is to airbrush away a crucial bit.
Re: (Score:3)
Google is not being evil (at least about this issue). They are being sensible.
Global warming is a long-term problem. We need to focus on stuff like CO2 that stays in the atmosphere for millennia.
Including water vapor is a silly distraction. Sure, it may have a warming effect, but that effect dissipates in a few days.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yes, that silly distraction that only adds 75% to the effects of the CO2 emissions. What frivolity!
It adds 75% ... for two days. Then it is gone. Meanwhile, the CO2 sticks around for a thousand years.
Re: (Score:2)
It adds 75% ... for two days. Then it is replaced. Meanwhile, the CO2 sticks around for a thousand years.
There, I fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Dupe-di-dupe-di-dupe-dupe (Score:1)
Water vapor is constant and continuing. It is a greater polluter than CO2 at holding thermal energy.
Re: Dupe-di-dupe-di-dupe-dupe (Score:1)
Let the climate change scams continue. If you think you or anyone else is making a dent spending trillions of tax payer dollars for little to no control over the weather then youâ(TM)re fucking retarded.
Re: Dupe-di-dupe-di-dupe-dupe (Score:1)
Does it really make a difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are there actually people who think to themselves "Well, I was going to book a flight to Hawaii, but that high carbon footprint just kills the deal."?
Re: (Score:2)
Before a bunch of other idiots post the same gibberish thinking they are being insightful, this is intended to allow the carbon footprint to be compared against another method of travel, such as driving the same distance. Though I don't know if google puts that information anywhere, perhaps if you ask for driving directions.
Any my vague impression from the article is that the new calculation is more accurate and matches the number computed for other industries. Water vapor does not count.
Re: (Score:2)
this is intended to allow the carbon footprint to be compared against another method of travel, such as driving the same distance.
I'm another idiot. No need to use a calculator. The answer will always be plane has the worst carbon footprint unless you want to travel alone in a supercar(but you already don't really care about your co2 footprint if you do).
Water vapor does not count.
I have 0 opinion about this but TFA says: "He fears consumers could come to believe that non-CO2 impacts on the climate are not relevant in the longer-term".
Re: (Score:3)
Actually for a long distance (such as across the USA) a lone driver is worse than flying on a commercial airline. https://www.rd.com/article/whi... [rd.com] That is the sort of interesting information. I do kind of doubt it will make anybody change their method or transportation, and I am really certain it will not change whether they make the trip at all (what all the "witty" slashdot posters keep posting).
Re: (Score:2)
this is intended to allow the carbon footprint to be compared against another method of travel, such as driving the same distance.
You're not driving to Hawaii.
While it's certainly possible to take road trips back here on the mainland, the amount of time spent driving isn't always practical. A few months ago I made a trip from Florida to Indiana, and because I had no intention of driving while fatigued, it required 4 days of travel round-trip. Generally, the reason you're getting on a plane is because you don't want to (or can't) spend your entire vacation or business trip on the road.
Re: (Score:2)
I have comparison shopped my travel plans based on many factors (travel time, cost, enjoyment, convenience, etc) but I have never comparison shopped based on carbon footprint.
Re: Does it really make a difference? (Score:1)
The only carbon footprint that should matter is what it looks like against your collective asses. Furthermore what it looks like upside your heads while in your respective asses too.
Re: (Score:1)
No, but plenty of people unironically think OTHER people should cancel their flights due to high carbon footprint. But they won't do the same for themselves because they "deserve it" and are special.
Re: (Score:2)
That the only place you can think of that people might travel is Hawaii tells me: 1) You don't travel 2) You live in a trailer park
Re: (Score:2)
That the only place you can think of that people might travel is Hawaii tells me: 1) You don't travel 2) You live in a trailer park
Correct on both counts. You win one internet point, congrats.
If you really must know, I picked Hawaii because it's one of the least likely destinations for someone to say "Hur hur, I don't live very far from there so I can just drive!"
Re: Does it really make a difference? (Score:2)
It does not.
The likes of Bill Gates will always take their private jets to climate summits while talking down to the common folk.
Thanks to security post 9/11 it is now faster to drive instead of taking short haul flights. For me travel time trumps virtue signaling brownie points.
Two ends of the spectrum: private jet vs private car.
This story was already submitted (Score:4, Informative)
Any less partial opinions? (Score:2)
Everybody knows Greenpeace is a front for / or at least in collaboration with AIs from the future, whose ultimate goal is to kill all humans. And on the other end of the spectrum the airlines would kill all humans if it made them a sizable profit for the quarter.
As Long as It Doesn't Clutter My Search (Score:2)
Don't care. Small differences ... etc. Google Flights is the best quick search for flights. I still like Kayak for more in depth flight searches and notifications when I care for that.
Disinformation (Score:1)
But CO2 accumulates (Score:3)
The problem with CO2 is that it accumulates in the atmosphere. The main reason for global warming isn't that CO2 keeps going up every year (although it does go up every year), it's that past emissions are accumulating. The ocean absorbs a large fraction of our emissions in order to move toward equilibrium with the atmosphere, but the rest accumulates.
Contrails don't accumulate, so their contribution to global warming (as a percentage) will fall over time as CO2 levels keep rising while contrail levels don't.
Also, I don't know anything about the chief scientist of Greenpeace, but Greenpeace is an activist organization that often disagrees with scientists, e.g. scientists tend to support GMOs that improve crop yields, and prefer nuclear power over fossil fuels; not so for Greenpeace.