The Lindbergh Foundation was founded in 1977 by Neil Armstrong, Jimmy Doolittle and other aviation interests who followed the work of Charles and Anne Morrow Lindbergh to carry on work the couple initiated in environmental causes. Today, the foundation is chaired by Erik Lindbergh, Charles’ grandson. In this TEDx talk Erik recently presented, he outlines the foundation’s belief that the most effective way to decarbonize aviation is through prizes similar to the Orteig Prize that inspired Charles Lindbergh’s trans-Atlantic flight in 1927.
Featured Video
FAA Fit? Wingman Med Backstops
Being properly prepared for your medical can save months of frustration.
Erik Lindbergh sounds like a smart man, but has he seen the atmosphere warming faster (and hotter) than the surface temps on earth? That has to happen before theory of co2 appreciably affecting surface temperatures can be proven. Heck, unless the dry adiabatic lapse rate of air has changed from 3°C/1000′ for a rise in altitude, then we pilots know that the atmospheric temperatures are NOT leading surface temperature rises. Q.E.D.
… and what if solar activity is the root cause of purported ‘climate change’ and not co2. Ice cores from antarctica have proven that co2 levels in the past were substantially higher than they are today. I wonder what these people will do when the sun starts turning into a red dwarf? OH! Raise taxes.
I’ve listened to Erik pitching his ideas in person. I’ve sized him up as essentially a personable, well-spoken and well-intentioned ‘dreamer’ with a famous surname which he rents out or leverages and little else. He teamed up with some folks from ERAU at DAB on electric people moving vehicles which morphed into green power ideas … and that was years ago. Next thing ya know … he’ll be teaming up with Greta Thornburg to build ocean liners where the passengers have to row. HEY! How’s about an airliner where the passengers pedal at their seats kinda like those moving bar trolleys in Key West?
In this TED talk, Erik now wants a prize to — in part — accelerate “direct carbon capture.” I guess he hasn’t heard of … um … trees?
Since any sober evaluation can see that surface temps are rising while atmospheric temps are lagging (the opposite of what is expected if co2 drives change), then all the “prizes” in the world will never address their stated climate concern.
Been going on for over 300 million years, Art….
At least five major ice ages have occurred throughout Earth’s history: the earliest was over 2 billion years ago, and the most recent one began approximately 3 million years ago and continues today (yes, we live in an ice age!). Currently, we are in a warm interglacial that began about 11,000 years ago.
Humans continue to have NOTHING to do with the climate changing.
I don’t think any serious person is doubting that climate change is in part a natural process but suggesting that humans are not having a significant impact is ignoring the facts. Concentrations of greenhouse gases are at their highest since the Industrial Revolution, and it’s due to burning fossil fuels.
Puny man is not the cause.Climate change has been going on since GOD made all of this.
I’m all for researching electric vehicles, including aircraft, but we don’t hear much about the climate and environmental costs associated with green energy… solar panels, wind farms, batteries (mining, producing, and disposal). Nothing is free. We also can’t control the carbon emissions of India, China, and/or Russia and I don’t think we can do this alone.
California is a stellar example of action prior to thought… let’s legislate a ban on gasoline powered vehicles and a short time later, ask citizens to refrain from charging their electric cars. Wow…
Go talk to a farmer about the feasibility of electric combines. Are we going to starve ourselves for the sake of reducing carbon emissions? That would certainly solve the “people” problem associated with carbon emissions.
As a CFI, I am not interested in a training aircraft with a 1 hour limit (maybe) for engine runtime. We need a breakthrough in battery technology (environmental concerns aside) and I don’t see anything looming on the horizon.
Too much topic and too little time and energy.
Geez, the math has been done on that, so to speak, years ago.
I see cars being hybrid or electric, more nuclear powerplants, and unleaded fuel powering our aircraft as the most “sustainable” setup.
👍👍 Sorry, I only have two thumbs. Climate change. Been going on for over 300 million years. This is Dem Snake Oil.
You are correct Doug.
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.
Erik … I just went back and spent two hours closely and slowly dissecting your TEDx talk a second time. Just from two charts you present, the 2011 World Energy use and he 2021 U.S. Energy use diagrams, I see that your idea is even more ridiculous … beyond the premise that carbon is the “enemy” and that institution of a prize for ridding the world OF it will save humanity or — at least — aviation. YOU need to sit down and study those charts closely.
The charts clearly show that the bulk of petroleum energy is used for transportation while the bulk of coal and natural gas energy is used to generate electricity. Together; solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, geothermal and biomass sources only provide 20% of total energy while the three 800 pound gorillas on those charts, coal, natural gas and petroleum provide 80%. SOMEHOW, you want the TED viewer or we Avweb readers to accept that both carbon is the enemy AND a private prize can hasten replacement of same. You propose that petroleum for transportation usage — 33% of the totals — can be replaced by electricity which — itself — relies on coal and natural gas for its source and for which the President vows to ‘kill.’ Newsome already proved that idea is nutty. What have you been smoking in your Yurt? Have you ever held a real job beyond rent-a-name? I respectfully suggest that you go back for a graduate degree in Silviculture so you can develop trees that grow electrons before you start trying to convince anyone that we don’t need carbon. Sorry to be so harsh — I said you’re well-intentioned — but now I’m convinced that you don’t know what you’re talking about; you just give slick presentations and your last name gets you in the doorways and into the limelight.
Almost nobody really understands how little CO2 is in the atmosphere: 400 parts per million – in more understandable terms, four parts per ten thousand. So, if you walked 10,000 steps – about 5-1/2 miles, CO2 would represent your first four steps – about five seconds out of a two-hour walk, and that ignores the fact that 97% of that CO2 is produced naturally, outside man’s control.
Volcanoes, swamps, rice paddies, fallen leaves, even insects and bacteria produce CO2 as well as methane, another greenhouse gas. Termites alone emit far more CO2 than all the factories and automobiles in the world. Natural wetlands emit more greenhouse gases than all human activities combined. If we could eliminate not only all human use of fossil fuels but all natural sources of greenhouse gases as well, 96% of any greenhouse effect would still remain, because of water vapor.
We are now at a near-historical LOW in CO2 levels – about 400 ppm, well documented by ice cores and other measurable sources. At 150 ppm, plant die-off begins – plants, which, by the way, make ALL of the oxygen that keeps animals like, say, humans alive.
It is likely that the recent uptick in CO2 levels are, indeed, manmade. The upside to that is a surge in greening throughout the planet – farms are more productive, producing more food, and by the way, this greening absorbs more carbon dioxide – the “problem” solves itself through the process of buffering.
Don’t let anyone tell you that the “climate crisis” is real or that it has anything to do with a Very Beneficial and Rare Gas, carbon dioxide. It has nothing to do with any of that, and everything to do with power. Never forget that.
James … YOUR response is THE MOST POIGNANT of all those in this thread. Your paragraph one reveals the folly of the climate zealots who think the sky is falling because someone told them carbon is the enemy. Your last two sentences reveal why politicians are using so called climate change. AND — oh, by the way — Greenland has that name because 500+ years ago it WAS green and livable by the Danes.
There’s an element of cancel culture here. There IS NO WARMING. The ice fields are getting LARGER. There are no major weather events differing from past patterns. The carbon catastrophe bleated by liberals has absolutely no impact (Greenhouse effect) upon our climate. Once again (Hopefully said culture will ‘allow’ this post) Mankind’s entire cumulative effect upon the earth’s climate is equivalent to a mouse fart in a shopping mall.
Ice is death; so I have a hard time cheering for glacier growth. But that’s just me 😉
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.
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.
I believe the basic problem is that the curricula in our K-12 schools do not put a major emphasis on critical thinking or how the scientific method works, so people will accept what the “experts” claim when those claims have not been tested. Science was put on a pedestal during the competition between the US and the USSR, and the result has been an overemphasis on “publish or perish” and a flood of research papers with little value and no confirming follow-up. Even worse is the politicization infecting climate research and other fields, exemplified by the IPCC’s periodic prophecies of doom.
“No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles, nor to prescribe in any way the character of the questions investigated. Neither may a government determine the aesthetic value of artistic creations, nor limit the forms of literacy or artistic expression. Nor should it pronounce on the validity of economic, historic, religious, or philosophical doctrines. Instead it has a duty to its citizens to maintain the freedom, to let those citizens contribute to the further adventure and the development of the human race.” ~ Richard P. Feynman
I call the experts “Ponytail PhDs”. These educated dilettantes will grasp any concept that keeps them in the headlines, or on the talk show circuit. Their hubris arises from a house of cards environmental “Model” which they default to assigning ‘culpability’ for climate change to human activities. This of course translates to political activities with alarmist bureaucrats claiming they’re our saviors, who’ll implement measures to reverse such Global threats. You won’t see these ‘experts’ prostrated on the runway at Andrews AFB, preventing Air Force One from departing on another carbon-spewing boondoggle.
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.
In 1972, while I was living in Carmel CA, my girlfriend’s mother re-married, to an old boy I found out only decades later, was Dwight Morrow Jr., Anne Morrow’s brother/Lindbergh’s brother-in-law. We had dinner with them once a month, and he and I had little to talk about, me being a young long haired hang glider pilot (started just months earlier), and he a retired economics professor (I think.) I had finally got the OK from the foreman at the nearby Stuyvesant Fish ranch in Carmel Valley to make a one time flight off a beautifully shaped ridge on their property, after the flight (just a sled ride, with a 3-1 glide thermaling was a few years off) and then the foreman told me the last to fly off the same ridge, in a bungee launched primary glider was….. wait for it, Charles Lindbergh. At the next dinner with the old people, I mentioned this to Dwight, trying to fill the usual conversational gap. Remember, at this time I had no idea who he was, and his response was “Huh” or words to that effect, and he changed the subject. Point being…, the Lindbergh family’s rightful distrust of anyone not in the family, after the kidnapping, was still in effect. 35 years later, reading a book on Lindbergh, I saw a picture of Dwight Marrow Sr., that’s what clued me in as the family resemblence between father and son was striking, further investigation proved it was indeed Lindbergh’s bro-in law I had nothing to talk about with during those dinners.
Will A: “Concentrations of greenhouse gases are at their highest since the Industrial Revolution, and it’s due to burning fossil fuels.”
Correlation does not imply causation.
Since the atmosphere is warming at a much slower rate than the surface temps, then we know conclusively that the “correlation” you stated is not causative. As far as correlation, the number and accuracies and locations of thermometers maps even more closely with the rise in global surface temperatures than co2 does.
I don’t mind experimentations with old technologies such as batteries, but their lack of context wedded to lofty sounding moral goals are exponentially approaching absurdity.
Scientists performing ice core studies discovered that the earth’s climate changed before carbon levels increased or decreased. This gas is actually a moderator of climate change, and is vital for plant growth and atmospheric stability.
So if you state that climate change is a political ideology intended to control people and wealth you will have your post deleted? Why? This piece discusses atmospheric climate change. Its a comment. Apparently Elon needs to buy Avweb….
The speaker makes several questionable assumptions that, coincidentally, are democrat talking points on climate change. There is never any analysis of the cost-benefit aspect; it’s always just zero carbon. Consumers will ultimately pay for heavy-handed government intervention.
You mean democrats like Elizabeth Warren, who passionately warned us about climate change, while she flew aboard private jets?
Foundations – Be very careful as they are regularly taken over by the progressive left and have no anchoring or foundation with those who start them with respect to where they go and what they do with their money and donations. Perhaps the Ford Foundation is most representative. One would think that a foundation established by Henry Ford and the Ford Motor Company would be reasonably conservative and carefully choose to whom they support. WRONG! The Ford Foundation was taken over many years ago by progressive liberals and funds and supports just about every liberal and progressive cause and idea, many of which are anti capitalistic and support anti American causes and organizations. Henry Ford would be spinning in his grave if he knew the direction it has taken. Just because Armstrong and Doolittle founded it does not mean it is now worth supporting.
The subject of climate change (as well as the arguments about it) is shot through with guesswork on all sides.
We do know some facts, although they tend to be ignored when they don’t fit the argument being advanced. For one, throughout the overall history of our planet, the large majority of the time the climate has been in what is termed “greenhouse Earth” mode, where temperatures are higher than now, CO2 levels are high, glaciers don’t exist & large ice sheets are limited to Antarctica, etc. Then, scattered throughout are shorter periods termed “icehouse Earth” spells, within which are the cyclic warmer-colder periods we think of as ice ages, or more properly glacial/interglacial periods.
Earth is now in one of those icehouse Earth stretches, and within it we are currently around 10,000 years into an interglacial period, but not yet at its peak. We will get to that peak in due time, regardless of windmills, batteries, conserve energy campaigns and prize contest generated carbon sequestration efforts. Can our efforts slow the climb? Maybe. Will our past and current CO2 emissions make the peak higher/hotter, or extend the interglacial duration before the next ice age? Maybe. Does it matter? Probably not much. Will we survive it all? Sure, and we may even like it better than glaciers and ice sheets. We are, after all, evolved as warm weather creatures.
Spot on, Mr. John W.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
Thanks for wading in, Erik. Knee-jerk denialism is rampant and noisy here but know that there are also many of us who take the long view, trust the science, and appreciate efforts like yours.
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.
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.
Nonsence, the flat earth society has membership all around the globe. 😉
It’s important to ensure America is energy independent. We do not want our tender portions in the grasp of foreign cartels and potentates. I don’t believe in human-caused “Climate Change”, but I do feel encouraged about technological advances in electric conveyances that will wrest our population from foreign oil, and the associated conflicts endemic to those regions.
“ 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 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.
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?
“Demonstrably irrational?”
Hardly. You’re using all the standard buzzwords to deny the peer-reviewed science that’s out there, especially “correlation does not imply causation.” Except it sometimes does when you have supporting data. Not all the research agrees on this, but science isn’t about consensus but a disciplined process to a repeatable conclusion. If you’re a denier, you’re a denier. Nothing will change that. And I’m the first to concede some basis for skepticism. Have it myself.
Eight years ago, Derek Muller of Verstasium did this excellent knockdown of all the standard denier arguments. Nothing has changed much since then except one thing: the rate of ice loss in Greenland is higher than forecast.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU
When 100% of grant money is handed out to support a theory, I’m surprised that only 97% “agree”. It’s called bias. It’s called losing your job if a scientist “denies” the pre-defined answer. You do not test theories this way.
I am a proud denier of pseudo-science.
Paul, Nice try – you cant argue with the brainwashed. All I would ask is that people keep an open mind (thats how you learn new things), cast a wide net and dont watch TV. The Crisis News Network, Fox news and the others are simply about stimulating the amygdala (fear and loathing) and are all about catering to and growing their tribe (or herd) so they can sell stuff. If any of these folks on the thread bothered to understand the history and power of incentive prizes they would understand that we are using a carrot rather than a stick (remember the Orteig prize and the XPRIZE?) to accelerate through the barriers. But mostly they see the words “decarbonizing aviation” and dont bother investigating. They just attack at any perceived threat with kernels of truth tied to conspiracies. In intelligence and propaganda circles these are known as “useful idiots”. They fight hard on your behalf (who’s behalf?) to sow discontent, anger and further misinformation. Russia is the likely origin of many of these irrational claims and more than a few commenters here are likely Russian trolls whose mandate is to make us fight amongst ourselves. Everyone on this thread (should) have a love for aviation and a love for America. This makes all of us have much more in common than any of us do with Vladimir Putins view of the world. Instead of talking about issues with an open mind, and learning about their merits and potential problems and adapting new understandings and plans of action, we tear ourselves apart like jealous children over a coveted toy. Todays threats of civil war between the south and the north or the right versus left, or climate change versus denial? Its Putin talking. Meanwhile – we have important work to do, so arguing with unhinged, but perhaps well meaning patriots mixed with Russian trolls, gets us nowhere. I will go back to my work which includes professionals from the right and the left and manufacturers and charter operators and end users and national labs, first to learn all about the barriers to decarbonization and then to work on incentive prizes to accelerate the changes needed and hope that it will be meaningful in the end. It is a risk, but one in which I am willing to take to ensure the viability of aviation and our planet into the future. If they dont understand that rationale – thats on them.
Deserts have evidence of oceans, rivers and lakes covering the landscape. In fact, one very rainy season restored a dry river bed to full capacity near our house in Lancaster, CA. Unfortunately, the street upon which we drove to the local market was built along said river bed. A three foot deep rapid flow of water prevented any use of that boulevard. This occurred when liberals were starting to grumble about Global Cooling.
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.
The experts miss the obvious; the chief priest misses the Messiah.
Looking at the glacier scared hills in Pennsylvania makes me embrace the warm period.
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.
Why are bozo elites always in charge? That is the most curious law of nature. Charles Lindbergh also had some odd views about dealing with the Axis powers in WWII, or perhaps more accurately not dealing with them. That is, until the war intensified. Then he sort of came around. Now we have his grandson telling us what is right, a man with a brain no better than most others. To put that in perspective, it’s like one grain of sand being in charge of the entire beach. There’s something wrong with that.
Charles Lindbergh spoke candidly about the Axis: He emphasized that America was not obligated to embroil our troops in a foreign conflict. If Americans would listen to folks like Lindbergh, we would be much better off economically, and our sovereignty/national security would not be rendered a liability to so-called “Globalists”.
Each conflict must be taken as circumstances dictate. Lindbergh did not even want to help Britain, never mind actually involving our own troops. So, you are implying that you would not have attempted preventing the Nazi party from controlling Europe? There were plenty of people like that.
The Nazi Party wanted desperately to avoid conflicts in Europe. Hitler made several overtures of peace toward Britain, but hawks (Churchill specifically) would campaign to spur England into battle against the Third Reich. Russia and Germany had forged a Non-Aggression Pact, but with the advent of the U.S. alliance with Russia, while Americans were simultaneously cajoled into protecting England after hostilities commenced, Germany once again found itself in the cross hairs of American forces.
Matthew P: : “We choose to make aviation sustainable, not because it’s easy, but because it’s hard”. Hmmm…channeling JFK, perhaps? “We choose to go to the moon and do other things; not because they are easy, but because they are hard.” -JFK
“Everything government touches turns to crap.” Ringo Starr.
To reiterate: The Lindbergh Foundation is working to make aviation permanently sustainable using incentive prizes. This is a proven methodology to improve the state of the art. It isnt about ideology, or control, or making money, it is modeled after the Orteig prize which jump-started the golden era of aviation and the Ansari XPRIZE which jump-started the private spaceflight industry. If any of you had actually watched the presentation you would understand that this is how we break through regulatory barriers, technology barriers and entrenched beliefs. My Grandfather used off the shelf technology to fly across the Atlantic (no giant technology leap), but he opened the worlds mind as to how aviation could be used. XPRIZE helped accelerate the adoption of new regulations so that the nascent private spaceflight industry could operate ballistic trajectories inside the united states (fAA initially wasnt inclined, but we told them: ok, but then our competitors will launch overseas and we will lose our edge – our leadership). Prizes work – I cant believe I felt compelled to write all these comments (also above) to clarify, but I suppose it was because there are so many erroneous echo chamber comments going into the gutter when we should be working on the same side to make aviation sustainable for our children and grandchildren. Watch the damn video and think about whether a suite of prizes is a novel idea to push the state of the art or if you want to be shut down by increasing numbers of people looking for climate equity. Or dont and blather on about polarizing ideologies that will tear us apart. Ironies abound…
“The Lindbergh Foundation is working to make aviation permanently sustainable using incentive prizes.”
Sustainable? Climate equity?
Prizes do not alter physics nor economics nor whatever you mean by “equity”.
The foundation is NOT about helping General Aviation where families would be able to have affordable airplanes to use for weekend adventures. No, they are for slogans and policies that diredtly will DENY average families a chance to own a plane and fly on weekends. Thery are anti-freedom and anti-American.
Perhaps the AV Web blog area should feature some warning or other, like
CAUTION! TOUGH CROWD AHEAD
Acceptance of offered narrative not guaranteed
Since Mr. Lindbergh is “channeling” his Grandfather, perhaps it is time for him to honor him and emulate the Orteig Prize that inspired his Grandfather to make the flight.
Put some of that “Lindbergh Foundation” money into a prize for the first nonstop New York to Paris flight in an aircraft powered solely by electric on-board power–no “hybrids.”
Perhaps, being a True Believer, Mr. Lindbergh the Younger would even care to be the pilot?
It’s easy to “call for” a given product (after all, all you have to do is state your wishes)–much harder to actually PRODUCE it.
I don’t think that he will have to worry about actually paying out the prize money.
Great. Aviation is sustainable, but the premise for applying that superlative stems from the “Climate Change” canard, which assigns human activities as causing this phenomenon. Humans don’t cause climate change, so aviation can advance to sustainability without Puffy Lips pointing their quivering digits at our staple energy sources.
Those of you who are wringing your hands over climate change and increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, please read: Inconvenient Facts: The science that Al Gore doesn’t want you to know by Gregory Wrightstone. The facts and geological history which Mr. Wrightstone presents ends the man made climate change debate. There is climate change alright, and it’s been going on for 4 billion years. The earth was once an ice ball. There are glacial periods and interglacial periods–be glad we have a warm earth to live in now. There were warmer periods than we have now–the medieval warm period lasted for 400 years, between about 950 to 1350. The Vikings settled the coast of Greenland and engaged in agriculture and had livestock. When Michael Mann (Penn State) and Phil Jones (East Anglia University) were exchanging emails (climategate) about their hockey stick theory, they couldn’t address the medieval warm period because there was no industrial activity to explain it. Of course everyone (IPCC) was on board with the hockey stick until it was discredited. There have been periods in millenia past that had much higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Also, there are no data sets that demonstrate a correlation between increasing CO2 and increasing temperature. There is some data to suggest that an increase in CO2 follows an increase in temperature. Carbon dioxide is a trace gas in the atmosphere–400 parts per million. That’s 0.04%. So nix on the carbon taxes; and drill baby drill. Keep flying those jet A powered planes and helicopters, and leave the batteries to power our phones and computers. And when the batteries catch on fire, hope you’re not in a craft that’s powered by the damn things.
Well, so much for any progress due to the X-Prize..
“Space tourism company Virgin Galactic released its third-quarter financial results last Thursday after US markets closed. As one might imagine of a spaceflight company that has not flown since June 2021, the financials are pretty disastrous. The company reported revenue of less than $1 million against losses of more than $146 million.”
Bezos isn’t exactly setting the world on fire either..
The anti-intellectualism present in this discussion saddens me. If you are ignorant enough to dismiss the effect of atmospheric greenhouse gases on the global energy balance, then please dismiss the recommendations of your oncologist if you need one because you don’t trust so-called “experts”. Change happens one funeral at a time.
If I had the keys to this country, alarmists like you would be sent by a restored Mothball Fleet ship to the South Pole with a thermometer, pencils, notepads, a cellphone and your best summer wardrobe to keep tabs on your Ice Melts. Since you’re so dedicated to this issue, maybe you’ll save lives by warning us when some iceberg flips over, or a whale beaches due to heat prostration.
Fred O. Just because you have an opposing view I’ll refrain from impugning your intellect or implying that you are ignorant. The ‘experts’ you are relying on are mostly politicians, globalists, and scientists who are dependent upon the global warming narrative for their paychecks and gov’t grants. There is also a nefarious motivation behind the global warming narrative which has nothing to do with climate. Have you read Gregory Wrightstone’s book Inconvenient Facts? Do you just dismiss it out of hand?? Here’s a short video I recommend for all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8455KEDitpU&t=4s Tony Heller shows various data sets and how they are manipulated to bolster the warming argument. Another video I recommend is a presentation by Professor Valentina Zharkova, a Russian astrophysicist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_yqIj38UmY She believes we’re on the precipice a solar Grand Minimum, which will cool the earth for the next 30 years or so. If that happens, that should settle the argument once and for all, and you’ll be wishing for some global warming, whatever its cause.
@Dennis C. Thanks for the links, the first video has the counter-argument to global warming produced in as straightforward and believable manner as I have ever seen it. As someone that has 80% of my wealth tied up in lithium stocks that support the drive for BEV I found the video rather disturbing.
Aviation has operated free of the interference of the over-reaching emissions regulators that have put substantial burdens on the automotive and HD trucking industries for decades. Having some first-hand experience with how they react when the facts appear to turn against them, I have invested on the premise that they will successfully drive their grand vision for an electric future to culmination – Regardless of any opposition science and regardless of any level of pain it may cause.
I still think I am right (for better or worse), but it is always good to be reminded that one should never fall in love with their investment thesis to the extent that it prevents them from watching out for a day the music stops.
In case you haven’t noticed–there are a LOT of people that don’t buy into the theory (and right now, that’s all it is……THEORY) of man-caused “global warming.”
As others have pointed out, “our Mother the Earth” has been warming and cooling for eons–millions of years before mankind. (Question: is the advent of Man the cause for the extinction of Wooly Mammoths?)
“Follow the money”–Remove the incentive of “more tax money to study whether it exists or not”–and there will be fewer that cling to the theory. In contrast, there is no incentive for the populace to believe that it is an unproven THEORY.
Every liberal program in existence would end tomorrow if liberals were required to fund their programs.
Erik … I watched YOUR video 3 times … now I want YOU to watch the 13 min. video Dennis C provided above for me. It underscores the position most people above have taken about the scam called climate change being committed on Humanity. THIS video should be required viewing for all of the people who honestly and innocently albeit ignorantly believe the scam.
youtube.com/watch?v=8455KEDitpU&t=4s
MORE importantly, I ask Paul B to view the video. You’re an expert data and statistics analyzer with a worldwide following here. Spare the 13 minutes, please. There’s even a part about sea level rise in there for you.