6 ms·

This is very simple, but something most of the HN people won't be able to do. STOP FLYING! Passenger numbers have gone up in a step change with CO2 count over

This is very simple, but something most of the HN people won't be able to do. STOP FLYING! Passenger numbers have gone up in a step change with CO2 count over the last 50 years, contrails compound the effect. The sad thing is - you will all look at this message and think. Why should I have to change? Why me, surely someone else must fix this? Don't wait for governments, don't wait for industry. Make individual choices that affect the output now and we will see a reduction (eventually). The psychology in this tells us not to lose hope, but to look to technology to solve the issues. But we must act responsibly in the meantime.

FooBarWidget 10y ago
What's the alternative? As an EU company, if I need to do business in the US then I can't say "let's schedule a meeting in a year while I go on a boat cruise". Virtual meetings only work to an extent -- they lack a human interaction touch. I suppose I can take a train if I go on holiday somewhere in the EU, but insane prices for international trains as well as other shenanigans are not making it an attractive choice.
- harwoodleon 10y ago
  I told you, you are symptomatic of the short-termist attitude that persists - we must carry on whatever the cost. The alternative is that you make do, because this is a serious situation, far more serious than a business deal. Ironically, your future income and the income and quality of your children's lives will be directly affected by your actions today. But, people just put it away in their minds, file it under "well, can't possibly do that" and forget about it. If the worst that can happen is some scary figures pop out of the news now and again, what's the point in changing? We will all look back in ten years and say, we had a chance to do something, but we didn't.
  - BearGoesChirp 10y ago
    You make the sacrifices, you go out of business and are replaced by someone who doesn't who will continue flying. If anything you have only made the situation worse for you. It is a prisoner dilemma of the grandest scale that has origins predating multi-cellular organisms.
  - FooBarWidget 10y ago
    That's easy for you to say but if I don't make money today then there may be no tomorrow to worry about. My point is that this can't just be a thing that an individual decides. We need country-level or international-level cooperation. Prisoner's dilemma, as others have pointed out.
- falcolas 10y ago
  There's another alternative - the slow boat. You can get from Europe to the US for around $700 on a cargo ship. The biggest difference is that it will take around 5-7 days one way. Most programmer's productivity wouldn't suffer too much from this, though managers or business owners might.
  - kaybe 10y ago
    I guess we need better VR. Then it is not necessary to go over in person.
- rwallace 10y ago
  > What's the alternative? As an EU company, if I need to do business in the US then I can't say "let's schedule a meeting in a year while I go on a boat cruise". Virtual meetings only work to an extent -- they lack a human interaction touch. That is one way to look at it. Supposing we said, physical meetings only work to an extent -- they pollute the atmosphere. Therefore there is no alternative but to make virtual meetings work. I put it to you that virtual meetings would work well - if the technology isn't quite there yet, it would be rapidly improved - if we took the attitude that we have to make them work, instead of taking the attitude that we have to travel.
biofox 10y ago
If the current state of security screening and customer service hasn't changed people's behaviour, not much will. Unfortunately, for a lot of people there are no viable alternatives.
- harwoodleon 10y ago
  It's an addiction, like smoking. Except far far more damaging to all life.
  - antisthenes 10y ago
    Not even nearly as bad as long commutes and having to drive everywhere, thanks to poor infrastructure decisions made by the US in the 50s and 60s. But, unlike transport, where you at least have an alternative (live in the city, ditch the car), if I have family on another continent, flying is the only way I can see them. A poster above you posted a source that flying is responsible for around ~3% of global emissions, but you nonchalantly relegated it to the realm of "fake facts". Your fanaticism is helping no one here. Regardless, both flying and personal automobiles powered by fossil fuels are a luxury that will soon be done away with, regardless of your appeals to conscience. Fuel will simply become too expensive (as we run out or introduce a carbon tax).
    - harwoodleon 10y ago
      Those aren't fake facts. They are facts. I don't really dispute their legitimacy, they could be absolutely correct and I could be wrong. It's my own view, you don't have to hold it for me. However, this is not either or, which fact is correct or not, this is a sum game. We all add to the problem. Have those facts true or not, helped in any way to reduce the carbon output. 2-3% might seem insignificant - it may be the 2-3% that tips us into a runaway climate. So, move near to your family, help save 2-3% per year. I did. Anyway, making yourself feel better by arguing with me, proving me wrong won't alter the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Stopping flying will. You have a choice.
      - 10y ago
kerbalspacepro 10y ago
As a % of CO2 emissions, how much is flying?
- nkurz 10y ago
  I'm not sure if I trust the numbers, but it looks like airplanes produce about 1.5% of the total global "CO2 equivalent" GHG emissions. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss... says that transport is 14% of total global GHG emissions. And http://www.atag.org/facts-and-figures.html http://www.atag.org/facts-and-figures.html says that airplanes are 12% of transport emissions.
  - harwoodleon 10y ago
    I certainly don't trust the numbers. There is common sense right? If we stick water vapour and co2 above the weather layer in the atmosphere, it will act like a pane of glass in a greenhouse? Right? You can't rain anything down from 35000ft can you? Look at the warming graphs/animations, most warming happens in the northern hemisphere (where most planes fly), since about 1970, which is when air travel became popular accross the northern hemisphere. Call me crazy (I know it's dangerous to make assertions without 150% of the facts) but that seems to me like an obvious thing that would affect warming. Please don't reply with some fact based rebuttal - hasn't helped so far.
    - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
      So you don't trust the numbers? And you say don't reply with fact-based rebuttals? You seem to be saying that your opinion is fact-free. That's... not very persuasive to the rest of us. I'm more likely to trust the numbers than someone who says "don't reply with facts". Yes, there is common sense; numbers can be misleading. But common sense can also be misleading; don't cling to it against all evidence.
      - harwoodleon 10y ago
simopaa 10y ago
I read in a local science magazine that (paraphrasing) no matter if all the cars were electric - as long as people keep flying, the amount of benzine produced would stay roughly the same, since making kerosene for the planes requires such huge amounts of raw oil. Benzine and other oil-based fuels were said to pretty much just a side product of kerosene production
- projektfu 10y ago
  Not sure, because refineries can crack larger hydrocarbons (kerosene) into smaller ones (gasoline/benzine) based on demand.

FooBarWidget 10y ago

What's the alternative? As an EU company, if I need to do business in the US then I can't say "let's schedule a meeting in a year while I go on a boat cruise". Virtual meetings only work to an extent -- they lack a human interaction touch. I suppose I can take a train if I go on holiday somewhere in the EU, but insane prices for international trains as well as other shenanigans are not making it an attractive choice.

harwoodleon 10y ago
I told you, you are symptomatic of the short-termist attitude that persists - we must carry on whatever the cost. The alternative is that you make do, because this is a serious situation, far more serious than a business deal. Ironically, your future income and the income and quality of your children's lives will be directly affected by your actions today. But, people just put it away in their minds, file it under "well, can't possibly do that" and forget about it. If the worst that can happen is some scary figures pop out of the news now and again, what's the point in changing? We will all look back in ten years and say, we had a chance to do something, but we didn't.
- BearGoesChirp 10y ago
  You make the sacrifices, you go out of business and are replaced by someone who doesn't who will continue flying. If anything you have only made the situation worse for you. It is a prisoner dilemma of the grandest scale that has origins predating multi-cellular organisms.
- FooBarWidget 10y ago
  That's easy for you to say but if I don't make money today then there may be no tomorrow to worry about. My point is that this can't just be a thing that an individual decides. We need country-level or international-level cooperation. Prisoner's dilemma, as others have pointed out.
falcolas 10y ago
There's another alternative - the slow boat. You can get from Europe to the US for around $700 on a cargo ship. The biggest difference is that it will take around 5-7 days one way. Most programmer's productivity wouldn't suffer too much from this, though managers or business owners might.
- kaybe 10y ago
  I guess we need better VR. Then it is not necessary to go over in person.
rwallace 10y ago
> What's the alternative? As an EU company, if I need to do business in the US then I can't say "let's schedule a meeting in a year while I go on a boat cruise". Virtual meetings only work to an extent -- they lack a human interaction touch. That is one way to look at it. Supposing we said, physical meetings only work to an extent -- they pollute the atmosphere. Therefore there is no alternative but to make virtual meetings work. I put it to you that virtual meetings would work well - if the technology isn't quite there yet, it would be rapidly improved - if we took the attitude that we have to make them work, instead of taking the attitude that we have to travel.

biofox 10y ago

If the current state of security screening and customer service hasn't changed people's behaviour, not much will. Unfortunately, for a lot of people there are no viable alternatives.

harwoodleon 10y ago
It's an addiction, like smoking. Except far far more damaging to all life.
- antisthenes 10y ago
  Not even nearly as bad as long commutes and having to drive everywhere, thanks to poor infrastructure decisions made by the US in the 50s and 60s. But, unlike transport, where you at least have an alternative (live in the city, ditch the car), if I have family on another continent, flying is the only way I can see them. A poster above you posted a source that flying is responsible for around ~3% of global emissions, but you nonchalantly relegated it to the realm of "fake facts". Your fanaticism is helping no one here. Regardless, both flying and personal automobiles powered by fossil fuels are a luxury that will soon be done away with, regardless of your appeals to conscience. Fuel will simply become too expensive (as we run out or introduce a carbon tax).
  - harwoodleon 10y ago
    Those aren't fake facts. They are facts. I don't really dispute their legitimacy, they could be absolutely correct and I could be wrong. It's my own view, you don't have to hold it for me. However, this is not either or, which fact is correct or not, this is a sum game. We all add to the problem. Have those facts true or not, helped in any way to reduce the carbon output. 2-3% might seem insignificant - it may be the 2-3% that tips us into a runaway climate. So, move near to your family, help save 2-3% per year. I did. Anyway, making yourself feel better by arguing with me, proving me wrong won't alter the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Stopping flying will. You have a choice.
    - 10y ago

kerbalspacepro 10y ago

As a % of CO2 emissions, how much is flying?

nkurz 10y ago
I'm not sure if I trust the numbers, but it looks like airplanes produce about 1.5% of the total global "CO2 equivalent" GHG emissions. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss... says that transport is 14% of total global GHG emissions. And http://www.atag.org/facts-and-figures.html http://www.atag.org/facts-and-figures.html says that airplanes are 12% of transport emissions.
- harwoodleon 10y ago
  I certainly don't trust the numbers. There is common sense right? If we stick water vapour and co2 above the weather layer in the atmosphere, it will act like a pane of glass in a greenhouse? Right? You can't rain anything down from 35000ft can you? Look at the warming graphs/animations, most warming happens in the northern hemisphere (where most planes fly), since about 1970, which is when air travel became popular accross the northern hemisphere. Call me crazy (I know it's dangerous to make assertions without 150% of the facts) but that seems to me like an obvious thing that would affect warming. Please don't reply with some fact based rebuttal - hasn't helped so far.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    So you don't trust the numbers? And you say don't reply with fact-based rebuttals? You seem to be saying that your opinion is fact-free. That's... not very persuasive to the rest of us. I'm more likely to trust the numbers than someone who says "don't reply with facts". Yes, there is common sense; numbers can be misleading. But common sense can also be misleading; don't cling to it against all evidence.
    - harwoodleon 10y ago

simopaa 10y ago

I read in a local science magazine that (paraphrasing) no matter if all the cars were electric - as long as people keep flying, the amount of benzine produced would stay roughly the same, since making kerosene for the planes requires such huge amounts of raw oil. Benzine and other oil-based fuels were said to pretty much just a side product of kerosene production

projektfu 10y ago
Not sure, because refineries can crack larger hydrocarbons (kerosene) into smaller ones (gasoline/benzine) based on demand.