[mattlutze]

Airplanes produce more greenhouse gas emissions per km than other travel methods. Over a nominal 1100 km, a generic passenger liner will produce 0.17 metric ton, whilst trains contribute a quarter to less than a tenth that, and coach buses a fifth. The same distance would be like driving a petrol car averaging about 36 US mpg or 6.5 L/100 km -- but your family of 4, let's say, would split that emissions impact in the car, where in the airplane it'd be 4x.

The notion that jetsetting should be a right of the masses is a myth built on future generations paying for the damage mass flying does today. Thinking ubiquitous travel should be cheap and trivially available may actually be the elitist view, as the elite or wealthy will be the only ones able to protect their way of life as the natural environment changes and cities become more difficult to live or work in.

Edit: I used https://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx, who describe their methodology here: https://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculatorfaqs.html

[nullwasamistake]

This source from US govt shows that planes are very efficient in MPG https://afdc.energy.gov/data/mobile/10311

Cabron density of kerosine vs gasoline isn't that different.

Maybe the carbon footprint website doesn't consider average occupancy? Cars and busses usually cruise around at far less than their passenger capacity, not so for planes

[Nasrudith]

I think your math is off - planes are usually loaded with people and per person mile far better than a mere roadtrip. You should divide the airplane emissions by at least 70. Fluid friction vs rolling helps a lot.

While trains and fully loaded buses may be superior it is still far from the worst evil for long distances.

[mattlutze]

You can have a look at the calculations if you'd like. There's a deceptively high amount of emissions with jet kerosene, even with the planes loaded up.

https://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx