Eyjafjallajökull Daily CO2 Output Utterly Dwarfed By European Aviation Industry

Mt Eyjafjallajökull is wreaking havoc on European travel right now, but what about the continent's environment? That's a lot of CO2 in the air, after all, but you'd be surprised to learn the aeroplanes it's grounded are much, much worse.

As you can see in the big, colourful graph, the European aviation industry's daily CO2 output completely dominates poor Eyjafjallajökull with a daily tally of 344,109 tons of CO2 per day. Compared to the volcano's 15,000 tons, that's quite the difference.

That said, it would be interesting to see what the ground travel contribution has been in the wake of the eruption. I know of a handful of people who took trains and buses from London to Milan, for example, to escape the ash zone and find a flight at another airport.

In any event, while travellers might malign the volcano for grounding them for days on end, the earth is apparently having a good laugh. Or maybe a belch or some flatulence - whatever human bodily function you happen to personify a volcano with is fine.[Information is Beautiful]


Comments

    Nice point with the CO2...did you consider the multitude of other harmful gases produced by a volcano though? Carbon Dioxide is far from the worst...or most prominent.

      Exactly, in fact it gets quite complicated. The sulfurous compounds and dust have a tendancy to reflect light causing a cooling effect.

      But when the dust lands on snowy areas they cause faster melting reducing the reflectiveness of the snow cover.

    Please send me the calculations showing the difference in GHG emissions of this activity v. all manmade GHG activity, assuming daily rate. Should be informative. By the way this and other earth burps are not done yet!!!

    The "Guardian" article was out on the estimated tonnage of CO2 by just a little bit : not 15000 tons as quoted but 150000 to 300000 tons

    http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1852153/volcano_co2_output_could_be_150300000_tons_daily/

    editors: if things just don' look right, and your article did not, be a little skeptical beofre publishing. In 2 seconds these stats looked wrong. Your reference of 15000 tons was of by an order magnitude. It has been upgraded to a conservative 150000. The chart is not so impressive now.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now