Ice is death; so I have a hard time cheering for glacier growth. But that’s just me 
Thanks for all your comments, hasty conclusions and aspersions… The Lindbergh Foundation is committed to my Grandparents vision of balance between advancing technology and preservation of the environment using science and data - not political ideology. Our board of directors is diverse (we aspire to recruit more women at the moment to balance it out better) and consists of a majority of veteran aircraft industry professionals. Our sponsors include the National Business Aviation Association, and our first brain trust meeting held at NBAA BACE included companies like Gulfstream, Pratt & Whitney, AvFuel, NREL and more. We are incentivizing change, by focusing first on identifying barriers to the adoption of SAF and using prizes to accelerate through those barriers. I hear loud and clear that this program is a big threat you each of you somehow, but fail to understand through your rhetoric why it is such a threat. Cost? Liberal conspiracy? Climate denial skepticism? I said publicly at the newsmakers luncheon that I believe that aviation has a target on its back, earned or unearned, but regardless, aviation needs to create solutions and drive from the left seat otherwise we may find ourselves sitting in the back and not having any control over where we land or if we can take off. You can bark all you like, and your resistance to change is a very human attribute, but change is inevitable and those who resist will be left on the ground. Those who adapt and adopt have a shot at flying into the future. This is an entrepreneurial effort - dinosaurs need not apply.
Thanks for the flattering comments Larry S. I think it is easy to snipe at people online than actually stick your neck out and do something worthwhile. It is true that as an entrepreneur, I have failed (or at least failed to thrive) at many businesses. But due to all the electric aircraft work that I have done (seeking to fly in more efficient ways) has resulted in the industry moving forward AND one (it only takes one) spectacular success that you wish you had invested in: VerdeGo Aero (headquartered in the research park at Daytona FL) - look it up. You can also see my response to all of the commenters below, though insufficient to address all of the sniping, junk science and fear mongering. I am doing this program out of a love for aviation, and the industry is by and large behind this effort. I suppose practically, I should ignore all these comments as most are just hot air and partisan tribalism which polarizes rather than seeks solutions, but you called me a well intentioned person and a dreamer. That is true. My dreams are that my grandchildren also have the freedom to fly that I have, and a habitable planet to fly around. These are huge complex dreams. But if I dont push on this dream then I have no one to blame but myself for not taking action. And if the other commenters have a more practical path to remove the target off our backs from a public that is looking for climate equity I am all ears, but ranting and raving just serves to increase their numbers and they have the numbers to overwhelm GA, commercial aviation and the airlines. The trends are just not good for aviation. Do something positive for aviation - join us. We are not the enemy.
Humans have very little impact on those cycles. Before our Chicken Little Climate Clamoring Clowns started fretting about polar ice melts, mile thick glaciers blanketed much of what is now the Upper Midwest. Those glaciers melted without one vehicle, coal furnace or lawnmower belching fumes. That melt created the Great Lakes. Maybe Fred Flintstone owned a Private Pterodactyl.
The subject is settled: The earth’s climate changes. Where liberals have insinuated their government/globalist agendas within our realm of public sectors entails their claim that humans are to blame for those changes, with emphasis upon the ‘dangers’ of our atmosphere becoming unsuited for our existence. Why those same Puffy Lips are traipsing around the globe aboard luxury jets (On our dime, no less) that belch 1000 times more carbon than any Humvee would make one ponder the ‘genuine’ concern about Climate Change projected by those phonies.
Great stuff Erik Lindbergh; this is the real spirit of aviation in action as I understand it, and as I understand the USA’s great legacy in aerospace. For those critics who didn’t bother to listen to the whole video; at 11:49: “We choose to make aviation sustainable, not because it’s easy, but because it’s hard”.
As an atmospheric physicist and a pilot, I find some of the comments here disturbing, and simply wrong. If a qualified mechanic tells you your aircraft is unserviceable, and you’re not a mechanic yourself, since when do you go against the mechanic’s advice and fly your aircraft anyway? So, if you’re not a qualified atmospheric physicist and have next to no experience in atmospheric research, what makes you so sure about what you are writing? (Crikey!!)
If people want their grandchildren to be able to participate in aviation in coming decades then get on board with schemes like Lindbergh’s, or get grounded.
I am not a doctor, but I can reason that mRNA has side effects and was not a vaccine.
I’m not an EE, but I’ve had practcal exprience to know solar/wind power has serious deficiencies.
I’m not an atmospheric physicist, but I can reason that Earth is a water planet; unlike Venus.
Point is that I’m getting a little annoyed at “experts” who try to lord over others and shame those who express valid concerns based on context and reason and practicality and history. So far, the “experts” have been demonstrably wrong on pretty much all major issues as seen in their recomendations and resultant policies. They are the ones who owe appologies and “I” will go out an fly today (like the real Lindbergh risked his life for) thank you very much.
"The Lindbergh Foundation is committed to my Grandparents vision of balance between advancing technology and preservation of the environment using science and data – not political ideology. " Yet this program appears to be dedicated to YOUR ideology–and anyone that disagrees is mocked as a “dinosaur.”
"I hear loud and clear that this program is a big threat you each of you somehow, but fail to understand through your rhetoric why it is such a threat. Cost? Liberal conspiracy? Climate denial skepticism? I said publicly at the newsmakers luncheon that I believe that aviation has a target on its back, earned or unearned, but regardless, aviation needs to create solutions and drive from the left seat-- "
You have a “solution” to a “problem” that many people do not believe exists–yet you would insist that everyone bends to YOUR PERCEIVED PROBLEM AND “CURE”–and those “cures” may be fatal to the patient.
In case you haven’t read the replies–there are MANY that don’t believe that carbon emissions are a problem–but like those people, you are entitled to your belief–just don’t try to get government to enforce your belief.
Far too many “true believers” believe that they have the solution to this problem that may or may not exist–but there are an equal number of people that believe that your “cure” may be for a “disease” that may or may not exist–or even WORSE than the perceived problem.
The science isn’t “settled”–far from it–but please don’t get government involved to enforce a perceived theory, where the “cure” (mining, electric propulsion, a strain on the transmission lines, unproven propulsion (hydrogen), operational dangers, and battery disposal…) is worse than a perceived problem.
Puny man is not the cause.Climate change has been going on since GOD made all of this.
You are correct Doug.
Carbon is a natural element, and there is no correlation to the amount of carbon in the atmosphere having any effect upon the earth’s climate. In fact, scientists discovered carbon levels changed AFTER ice ages, and warming intervals. The Sun is our means to survive on this rock, and when certain events occur which will increase solar radiation, or the increased absorption of the same within our atmosphere due to factors wholly out of our control, OR our ability to change, we will simply need to adjust to those phenomenon, as mankind has done for eons.
And doubtless you have “reasoned” that no one actually landed on the moon. Oh, and an election denier as well. Breathlessly awaiting your next comment asserting that the earth is flat.
No matter what you think the cause is, ice sheets are growing in area because they are melting. Melting in the interior causes a significant increase in runoff of fresh water. This reduces the salinity of the water near the edges, raising the freezing temperature and allowing more to be frozen at the edges. So, simultaneously, the total mass of the ice is greatly reduced while the area can increase.
Nonsence, the flat earth society has membership all around the globe.
I’m fully convinced that carbon emissions have contributed to the rapid heating and other changes we are seeing. I live in the mountain west, and there is simply no question about the dramatic changes to our landscape. It has been sad to watch. Trees have died off on large portions of the Rockies, and in the forests that are still living we’ve had fires at a scale and frequency that we have never seen, changing our summers probably forever. We live in smoke during what used to be the nicest part of the year. The scientific evidence about this being primarily human-caused is overwhelming. The is no doubt that globally, human societies need to be doing more to reduce our emissions and, perhaps more urgently, adapting the very damaging changes that are already underway. With that said, I really doubt aviation is the place to make reductions in carbon emissions. There are so many other settings, most importantly power generation and heating and cooling buildings, where we can accomplish the same work without emitting carbon, that spending money to try to produce carbon-free flight seems likely to be a poor return on investment compared to other things we could be doing. The only convincing argument would be that technologies could come out of the carbon-free flying effort that might be helpful in other settings, but that seems like a very indirect route to reducing emissions.
The process is certainly flawed, and I think people can feel it. The Academy needs a thorough house cleaning, but we ought to at least start bending the curve. There aren’t a lot of problems that cannot be reduced with some gentle turning if the ship.
“ If a qualified mechanic tells you your aircraft is unserviceable, and you’re not a mechanic yourself, since when do you go against the mechanic’s advice and fly your aircraft anyway?”
That’s one example. If a mechanic tells you your car needs an expensive part replaced do you ever suspect greed or incompetence? You might ought to. Part swapping in engines is a great way to make money with little hard work while the customer pays extra for all your guesses.
There’s a reason we have become skeptical of experts in this country, and the experts on experts are confirming our suspicions. Too much faith in experts has cost us too much. I know the government types are not conspiring to keep ruining my life, but the result of their incompetence and exuberance seems to often have a similar effect. They certainly have ruined our universities which we have too many of and which have poisoned the culture with too much nonsense.
I’m still waiting for all the earths people to die from starvation from the ice age all these “experts” were predicting back in the 70s.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Weather is not climate.
The Great Drought in North America [1276–1299] did exactly the same thing.
The leap that the trace gas co2 is driving global climate and that “we’ve never seen this before” is demonstrably irrational. The number of bunny rabbits also correlates exactly with temperature swings so all wee need to do is reduce rabbits, right?
Here’s the thing. We have a a two party system, which seems problematic, but that means inevitably one party will take each side in the major debates of our time.
The party that thinks we ought to take drastic steps to reduce carbon emissions is only willing to take steps that are easy. They will not add taxes for the burning of fossil fuels because that might lose them votes. They will only add taxes and use policies to hurt political villains such as oil companies. They will happily write checks and add debt so supporters can try to capture energy markets while paying themselves big salaries.
In other words, they act like even they do not believe it. They just keep playing high school style games with billions and trillions of dollars.
Continued appeals to authority, doom and glooming, name calling, and corruption are not going to help reduce carbon the atmosphere.
At the same time, the other party seems pretty willing to compromise on policies that appear to offer results for low harm.
Seems to me the most important progress to concentrate on is cleaning up the political mess in the universities and federal government before we make things worse.