Source: The Climate Crisis Newsletter
Surely, we don’t want this. In part, of course, because it’s climate-insane. Supersonic planes, as Kate Aronoff points out, emit five to seven times as much carbon per passenger as conventional jetliners. United’s statement that the planes, which could be in operation by the end of the decade, will be “net zero from day one” is perhaps the best example yet of what an empty pledge “net zero” is turning out to be. Among other issues, the planned fleet of planes could use up twice the European Union’s supply of “sustainable jet fuel.” (By the way, if you want an example of creative greenwashing, here’s a piece making a case that more private jet travel may be “beneficial” for the climate. “Saying too loudly it’s better to have a few wealthy folks and their shiny jets instead of more widebody airliners arriving with budget travelers doesn’t necessarily go over well,” the author writes, adding that some companies have introduced “jet-sharing programs” so that “private fliers can carpool.”)
But let’s talk about something more than emissions. If we’re going to take climate change seriously, it also needs to come with a new aesthetic. We have to start seeing wind turbines on the horizon as kinetic art, not blight, for instance. And we might want to rethink what travel means, something that our pandemic year should have helped us with. At this point, it’s clear that you can conduct a lot of business remotely. What that means is not that we need to stay at home forever but that we could learn to travel slowly, precisely because we can e-mail the whole way, and because, as Zoom insists, people are learning to use it at thirty thousand feet. (Turn off your mic and use the chat, people.) Also, there’s Slack.
More exciting than United’s supersonic order was the news that, as early as 2025, an outfit called Hybrid Air Vehicles may be offering regularly scheduled blimp service between cities such as Seattle and Vancouver, or Barcelona and Mallorca, or Liverpool and Belfast. According to the company, dirigible travel will emit ninety per cent less carbon dioxide per passenger mile than a standard airplane—and, by 2030, an all-electric version may eliminate emissions entirely. But I think the experience will be the thing: with no need for a runway (and no jet-engine noise), the blimps could land near the center of cities. And blimp passengers, instead of strapping themselves into a metal cylinder with tiny windows and enduring a cramped ride, will have huge windows to gaze out of and plenty of room to move around. Yes, there will be luxury options for the rich—that feature of our world won’t disappear. But these options do sound nice: a Swedish firm has already ordered a dirigible outfitted with deluxe cabins for trips over the North Pole. I’d save for years to do that once.
So far, the best descriptions of what this new world could be like come from Kim Stanley Robinson, a science-fiction author who specializes in depicting the kinds of delights that a world that took our predicament seriously might produce. Travel by blimp has featured prominently in several of his books, most recently the wonderful “The Ministry for the Future.” In the novel, he writes that takeoff “felt strange, lofting up over the bay, bouncing a little on the wind, not like a jet, not like a helicopter. Strange but interesting. Dynamic lift; the electric motors, on sidecars up the sides of the bag, could get them to about two hundred kilometers an hour over the land, depending on the winds.” In Robinson’s book, the travellers stay aloft for days, their pilot following animals or dropping down to see the snouts of glaciers. And here’s the thing: the passengers can keep working if they need to.
Leave a Reply