4 ms·

I don't disagree with anything you've said, but not having a viable alternative to fossil fuel driven flight right now doesn't justify accelerating the damage i

I don't disagree with anything you've said, but not having a viable alternative to fossil fuel driven flight right now doesn't justify accelerating the damage it's doing by leaning further into it.

ThomPete 8y ago
By that standard you shouldnt be using the internet. The “damage” is questionable to say the least. There is a whole group of poor people who need access to fossil fuels to survive, but are you going to stop them from getting it in the mame of climate change? Are you goin to stop buying computers and other products build and distributed using the internatioal supply change? If not why expect others to do what you dont?
- worldsayshi 8y ago
  I don't understand this logic. How does one action with unfortunate side effects excuse another? Sure perhaps we shouldn't be using the internet. Or perhaps we should do a lot more to make sure that the energy used for powering the internet is sustainable. But our deficiency in that area doesn't make this activity any better.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    Who are you to decide what is ok and what is not? How do you know that building a supersonic jet doesent open up for other technologies or methods that wil improve effectiveness of fuel consumtion? I dont understand with what logic you get to decide that your consumption is ok but other peoples use isnt.
godelski 8y ago
Aviation is small fish though. REALLY small fish. This type of aviation even more so. It accounts for only 1-2% of anthropomorphic CO2eq production. Benefits outweigh the bad. I'm not aware of climate scientists actually caring about supersonic travel. I'm kinda surprised to see this kind of hostility. Same thing happens when nuclear is suggested even though the IPCC HIGHLY advocates its use. It is all about relative impact. Part of the problem with resolving climate change is that even the people who acknowledge it fight among themselves and don't push for both current technologies (which includes nuclear) and research for new technologies (fusion, batteries, and better solar/hydro/wind). We need to just listen to what the experts say, not what you read in some blog post or HN comment.
- idontpost 8y ago
  > I'm not aware of climate scientists actually caring about supersonic travel. Because there isn't any. None. Zero. Why would you be aware of people worrying about something that currently doesn't exist?
  - godelski 8y ago
    > Why would you be aware of people worrying about something that currently doesn't exist? I'm not sure how to break this to you, but scientists are generally aware about up and coming technologies. And we do think about potential future impact. So let me rephrase >>I'm not aware of climate scientists actually caring about potential future implementations of supersonic travel.
    - toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
      That’s because they’re more aware of the history of commercial supersonic transport than the investors at Boom, and therefore have no reason to worry.
      - jessaustin 8y ago
        Haters can't make up their minds...
        toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
        You don’t expect to see an unvarnished historical perspective derided that way here, but I suppose you have a point. Can you tell me where I’ve changed my mind on this issue?
    - idontpost 8y ago
      I'm not sure how to break this to you, but supersonic flight isn't an up and coming technology. It's decades old, and it's failed for economic reasons. Climate scientists worrying about the impacts of supersonic flight would be like Ornithologists looking to spot dinosaurs in the wild.

I don't disagree with anything you've said, but not having a viable alternative to fossil fuel driven flight right now doesn't justify accelerating the damage it's doing by leaning further into it.

ThomPete 8y ago

By that standard you shouldnt be using the internet. The “damage” is questionable to say the least. There is a whole group of poor people who need access to fossil fuels to survive, but are you going to stop them from getting it in the mame of climate change? Are you goin to stop buying computers and other products build and distributed using the internatioal supply change? If not why expect others to do what you dont?

worldsayshi 8y ago
I don't understand this logic. How does one action with unfortunate side effects excuse another? Sure perhaps we shouldn't be using the internet. Or perhaps we should do a lot more to make sure that the energy used for powering the internet is sustainable. But our deficiency in that area doesn't make this activity any better.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  Who are you to decide what is ok and what is not? How do you know that building a supersonic jet doesent open up for other technologies or methods that wil improve effectiveness of fuel consumtion? I dont understand with what logic you get to decide that your consumption is ok but other peoples use isnt.

godelski 8y ago

Aviation is small fish though. REALLY small fish. This type of aviation even more so. It accounts for only 1-2% of anthropomorphic CO2eq production. Benefits outweigh the bad. I'm not aware of climate scientists actually caring about supersonic travel. I'm kinda surprised to see this kind of hostility. Same thing happens when nuclear is suggested even though the IPCC HIGHLY advocates its use. It is all about relative impact. Part of the problem with resolving climate change is that even the people who acknowledge it fight among themselves and don't push for both current technologies (which includes nuclear) and research for new technologies (fusion, batteries, and better solar/hydro/wind). We need to just listen to what the experts say, not what you read in some blog post or HN comment.

idontpost 8y ago
> I'm not aware of climate scientists actually caring about supersonic travel. Because there isn't any. None. Zero. Why would you be aware of people worrying about something that currently doesn't exist?
- godelski 8y ago
  > Why would you be aware of people worrying about something that currently doesn't exist? I'm not sure how to break this to you, but scientists are generally aware about up and coming technologies. And we do think about potential future impact. So let me rephrase >>I'm not aware of climate scientists actually caring about potential future implementations of supersonic travel.
  - toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
    That’s because they’re more aware of the history of commercial supersonic transport than the investors at Boom, and therefore have no reason to worry.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      Haters can't make up their minds...
      - toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
        You don’t expect to see an unvarnished historical perspective derided that way here, but I suppose you have a point. Can you tell me where I’ve changed my mind on this issue?
  - idontpost 8y ago
    I'm not sure how to break this to you, but supersonic flight isn't an up and coming technology. It's decades old, and it's failed for economic reasons. Climate scientists worrying about the impacts of supersonic flight would be like Ornithologists looking to spot dinosaurs in the wild.