3 ms·

Compare flying versus not flying, not to cars. For tens to hundreds of thousands of years, humans found ways to be happy where they were. Today people fly acro

by spodek 10y ago

Compare flying versus not flying, not to cars. For tens to hundreds of thousands of years, humans found ways to be happy where they were. Today people fly across the country to go to a party. Or to see the Great Barrier Reef before it disappears, due to pollution. Yet they don't know their neighbors. My goal is to help people improve their lives living less wasteful lives, not deprive themselves. It takes changing mental models, which is a big part of what leaders do.

mikeash 10y ago
For tens to hundreds of thousands of years, humans found ways to be happy without cars, electricity, or central heating too, so why does it seem like air travel is always the poster boy for "you're so hypocritical about fighting climate change" statements?
- patall 10y ago
  Because there is not much a difference in going to Australia or to the next big coast if you are staying in your hotel anyways. Many people go on vacation trips without any reason but showing off to friends how well they get around. Going without electricity or central heating on the other hand has a big impact on your every day life (and even there we are advocating it like powering off devices and light when you leave the room, cooling down the temperature at night, when you are away and also in general. It is just that for intercontinental flights there is most of the time no real reason but because you can. And thats no reason at all.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Seems like there must be a difference, because people pay substantial premiums for it. Air travel isn't cheap, and the cost correlates fairly well with the CO2 emissions produced, so if people are going to Australia instead of the next big coast they must think it's worth a decent amount. Maybe it's not worth enough considering the damage done to the climate, but the only way to get people in general to care is to bake that cost into the price they pay. Telling them that going to Delaware is as good as going to Australia will just make them think you're a nut. Going without electricity and central heating would be huge, but reducing your electricity consumption and turning your thermostat down a couple of degrees is a pretty small sacrifice, and can easily save more CO2 than a typical person's airline travel. And yes, there are plenty of people advocating for conservation in every imaginable area. But it seems like air travel is the first and often only target for complaints of hypocrisy. I haven't seen anyone say, "How many people advocating for action on climate change eat beef, or had fruit from another continent for breakfast?"

by spodek 10y ago

mikeash 10y ago

For tens to hundreds of thousands of years, humans found ways to be happy without cars, electricity, or central heating too, so why does it seem like air travel is always the poster boy for "you're so hypocritical about fighting climate change" statements?

patall 10y ago
Because there is not much a difference in going to Australia or to the next big coast if you are staying in your hotel anyways. Many people go on vacation trips without any reason but showing off to friends how well they get around. Going without electricity or central heating on the other hand has a big impact on your every day life (and even there we are advocating it like powering off devices and light when you leave the room, cooling down the temperature at night, when you are away and also in general. It is just that for intercontinental flights there is most of the time no real reason but because you can. And thats no reason at all.
- mikeash 10y ago
  Seems like there must be a difference, because people pay substantial premiums for it. Air travel isn't cheap, and the cost correlates fairly well with the CO2 emissions produced, so if people are going to Australia instead of the next big coast they must think it's worth a decent amount. Maybe it's not worth enough considering the damage done to the climate, but the only way to get people in general to care is to bake that cost into the price they pay. Telling them that going to Delaware is as good as going to Australia will just make them think you're a nut. Going without electricity and central heating would be huge, but reducing your electricity consumption and turning your thermostat down a couple of degrees is a pretty small sacrifice, and can easily save more CO2 than a typical person's airline travel. And yes, there are plenty of people advocating for conservation in every imaginable area. But it seems like air travel is the first and often only target for complaints of hypocrisy. I haven't seen anyone say, "How many people advocating for action on climate change eat beef, or had fruit from another continent for breakfast?"