264
this post was submitted on 20 Jan 2026
264 points (98.2% liked)
Not The Onion
19369 readers
981 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Cynicism about the airline industry aside, I'd like to see how much CO2 this could prevent. Probably simple to calculate if you know how much jet fuel costs and how much CO2 it produces.
It won't reduce jet fuel. It just means commercial planes can carry more cargo.
Excellent point! But then wouldn't that mean fewer cargo planes? So still less fuel overall even if not on a per-plane basis.
Micro economics: Price will reduce to maximize utilization
The world we know: reduction in cost means increased profits we can funnel directly into fuel for the CEO'S private jet and super yachts.
Carbon isn't considered a cost by the wealthy and powerful.
Not just jet fuel, but also savings in food production, which is a major producer of co2
The US has always had a different fuel calculation for aircraft because of so many body positive passengers. There is even a different calculation flying the same route from the US than to the US.
FAA standard person is 170lbs/77kg. I'm sure the airlines use a better estimate though.