9 ms·

If Seeing the World Helps Ruin It, Should We Stay Home?

32 points by hbgb 7y ago

ardit33 7y ago
Heating your home "ruins" the world. You probably wont die at 40*F inside your home, but it sure would suck living that type winter. So does cooling it during the summer, so do many other modern amenities, etc... At some point it begs the question: Is the world you are preserving worth living? Sure, there are billions of people that don't have any of these amenities in life, but it is mostly by necessity and they can't afford any better... So, is travel necessary? No. Is traveling something you should feel guilty about, probably not.
- eeZah7Ux 7y ago
  > Is the world you are preserving worth living? Future generations would like to exist. Perhaps in people year 5000 will put 2019 in the same bucket with the dark ages.
  - beat 7y ago
    The last human being will eat the last cockroach. Pollution and climate change are not an existential crisis for humanity. We're just not that powerful (yet). Humans have survived, and thrived, in far worse conditions than we are experiencing today, or that climate change is likely to cause, and it was done without the benefits of modern technology. (Really, conditions are better now because of modern technology.)
ctlby 7y ago
If we take climate change activists at their word, the answer is a resounding YES. There is a full-blown crisis brewing, one that can only be resolved with massive social changes ("if everyone does a little, we’ll achieve only a little" [1]). The NYT should be pushing much more draconian measures. [1] https://www.withouthotair.com/c1/page_3.shtml https://www.withouthotair.com/c1/page_3.shtml
- dv_dt 7y ago
  I think there is a PR war going on to push the responsibility of climate crisis fixes onto personal actions in order to avoid actual widescale industrial changes. We can create fuel from carbon and at least for the air sector it makes reasonable sense - even if that increases the cost of travel. Airlines like other corporations want to avoid specific requirements like that that as a regulation.
- jcroll 7y ago
  You can curb the consumption of anything with a tax, unfortunately getting the political capital to implement one is another thing. It looks sadly like the climate will have to change quite a bit more until that possible
ve55 7y ago
No. Leading a completely utilitarian life based only on the metric of estimating the emissions produced by your actions (and then, only first-order effects) is not only completely infeasible, but is also not a solution to global warming.
- bubblewrap 7y ago
  We are talking about a comparatively pointless activity with a huge carbon footprint. There are plenty of other ways to enjoy life.
geff82 7y ago
The recent argument against traveling is a proxy war. Heating, cooling, electricity and driving are the things that make up 75% of the emissions, plus about 20% for industrial production. All of the points I listed can be replaced by sustainable alternatives TODAY (ok, maybe not all people in one year, but the products are available) without us having to reduce out comfort in a major way. We could travel 5 times more than now when we switched away from technology mostly invented about 120 years ago and still have a better environment.
- bubblewrap 7y ago
  Really - what solution is there for heating and cooling? Especially given that insulating houses with plastic seems to cause other problems like mold, or pollution with toxins to prevent mold? And driving? People could just stay home, I suppose?
  - eropple 7y ago
    > And driving? People could just stay home, I suppose? Walk. Bicycle. Use public transit. In extremity, buy an electric car (but that has issues, too). If your question is "what should people who live, heavily subsidized, in suburbs and exurbs, do?", then the answer teases itself out pretty elegantly.
    - happytoexplain 7y ago
      Why the dismissive attitude about where people live?
      - fowkswe 7y ago
        If you are consciously making decisions to not live a carbon heavy life, you'd naturally choose to not live in a ex/suburb.
        mfatica 7y ago
        So we should all pile into cities? Do you realize how ridiculous that is? We can't concentrate everyone in a walkable / bikeable area, it's just not feasible.
eeZah7Ux 7y ago
Yes. Consumerism and conspicuous consumption include travel and other services. You can instead stay home and read a book. Perhaps on a slow, eco-friendly journey every few years.
- fastball 7y ago
  Who is it I'm saving the world for if not myself or my children?
  - bubblewrap 7y ago
    He didn't say you shouldn't have kids. My kids read books, too.
    - beat 7y ago
      Sadly, a lot of people say we shouldn't have kids because it's bad for the Earth. Which ties to poor arguments about "overpopulation".
      - bubblewrap 7y ago
        What are poor arguments about overpopulation? Clearly overpopulation is part of the problem.
        beat 7y ago
        Is it? When countries modernize their economies, the birth rate plummets to near-replacement rates over the course of about two generations. Take Iran, for example. In 1980, their birthrate was around 6. Today, it's lower than Europe. What population growth we're seeing today is mostly due to increased lifespan, not high birth rates.
        bubblewrap 7y ago
        First, I think most population growth is in "3rd world countries", so your theory of increased lifespan being the culprit doesn't really hold. The theory that growth slows with economic improvements is nice, but it is not a law of nature. Besides even with no more growth, we still have billions of people who want to raise their lifestyle to Western levels, increasing their CO2 footprint by orders of magnitude. And another way to look at it: if there were only 10000 humans on earth, they would probably have a difficult time trying to move CO2 levels by a significant amount, or producing significant amounts of plastic, and so on. So clearly population size is a part of the problem.
kevin_b_er 7y ago
The Tragedy of the Commons prevent this. You cannot solve it solely by making yourself "use nothing" when others will abuse that to take more for themselves. It will not solve the problem when the rich have enough resources to do the ruining themselves no matter what you do.
eafkuor 7y ago
And now I have to feel guilty about this too. What a life :/
- gridlockd 7y ago
  You don't have to. People always worry about destroying nature, they don't worry so much about nature destroying them. Let's say you were stranded in the arctic and met one of those poor polar bears. He'd rip you to pieces just for the heck of it. He's a goddamn killer with no remorse. He's not going to feel guilty. So fuck that polar bear and the ice sheet he lives on. We don't owe him a damn thing. We're going to grill this planet and then terraform it right back again, maybe. Or maybe we'll all die in the process. But we shouldn't feel guilty about it. Nature put us at the top of the food chain, it's going to have to deal with the consequences.
  - AQuantized 7y ago
    This seems like an odd perspective. We aren't polar bears and I don't know why their intellectual incapacity to empathize with their prey should have any bearing on how we feel about destroying them or their environment.
    - gridlockd 7y ago
      Let's say it was an even more unpleasant animal. Imagine one of these brain-eating parasitic worms. How much quality of life would you personally be willing to give up on, to save those worms and their environment?
- redthrow 7y ago
  If it makes you feel better, Elon Musk flies around in his private jet while tweeting "why not go renewable now?" rather than taking a more nuanced stance.
  - DesiLurker 7y ago
    these type of arguments are really immature and dishonest. So what if a billionaire or a world leader is flying around in Jet. How is that an argument for us to destroy our habitat for future generations. statistically speaking how much of global warming is cause by private jets vs the rest of it? if the 'influencers' are not gonna talk about it then who else is? and will it matter? if you take a step back & see you'll notice these type of arguments are designed to evoke an emotional response in a casual observer so they dont feel the need/desire to further engage in the (admittedly) marginally interesting topic.
bubblewrap 7y ago
"But actually this summer, we’re going to Greece" He does all the calculations, is more informed than the average person, and still decides to just go for it. This is why the battle against global warming is pointless. Human population explosion (triggered by the invention of agriculture) will simply run its course, and we'll just have to live with whatever world we'll be left with in the end. Yes, he is buying "offsets" for his family, but most of them are clearly a scam, and he also seems to be aware of that. Trees take years to grow, and capture carbon in the ground, not in the higher atmosphere. Methane would probably be burned anyway, nice for the operators that the can make some extra bucks selling the "offsets". As for travel: buy a big TV. There are movies from beautiful places all over the world. Then go swimming in a lake nearby. No need to travel thousands of miles for that. What is so important about visiting Greece? I live in Europe and I have never been to Greece. Nevertheless, I have some ideas about its culture. I've seen photographs, read the Iliad, talked to Greek people, and so on.
- inertiatic 7y ago
  Oh wow. This could be satire and I wouldn't be able to tell. What's so important about experiencing anything? Just watch TV.
  - buboard 7y ago
    It's hyperbole, but its partly true. I live in greece and see those tourists. We live in a tourist bubble, fueled by social media, airbnb and pretty instagram pictures. Tourists are overreporting the value of their experience, as in most cases i know they are getting a prepackaged experience, which is same for everyone, in a beautiful environment but really not always meaningful. Local cultures are diluted everywhere, and when they are preserved in touristy places it's artificial. Tourism nowadays is largely escapism, not much different from VR or gaming. I wish people started actually moving to other places instead of just visiting. A mass emigration to more temperate climates would also reduce heating costs massively.
    - antisemiotic 7y ago
gridlockd 7y ago
"Each additional metric ton of carbon dioxide or its equivalent — your share of the emissions on a cross-country flight one-way from New York to Los Angeles — shrinks the summer sea ice cover by 3 square meters, or 32 square feet, the authors, Dirk Notz and Julienne Stroeve, found." Those picture-like analogies may be very effective, but I immediately call bullshit. I want to know a percentage. Let's say 100% of air travel was removed, how much CO2 is that in savings, percentage-wise? It's two percent[1]. If you just told people it was two percent, they would immediately proceed to not give a damn. Only the most dogmatic of people would be giving up a major freedom in their life just to save a theoretical two percent on CO2. [1] https://www.atag.org/facts-figures.html https://www.atag.org/facts-figures.html
- bpfrh 7y ago
  That figure is misleading. In the uk the domnestic aviation accounts for 22% of the transportation sector. Airtravel is a luxtury and unfortunately in a crises that should be the first to go. At least domnestic flights should be banned immediately. Will it solve our Problem? No. Will it help solve our Problem? Yes, because it is one of the things we can get easily ride of. Nobody says you can't travel anymore, just take the train.
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    Your 22% figure is misleading. It makes it sound significant, but it's not. In reality, anything that people in the UK can do regarding domestic CO2 is insignificant to world CO2 emissions. They could be 100% carbon neutral and it wouldn't make a dent. Instead of giving up on liberties and wasting money on tiny gains on CO2 savings, the UK should be using it towards developing technologies for the rest of the world to thrive on - without emitting so much CO2. That's not what people want to hear though. They want to feel significant. They want to feel good about themselves because they're eating vegan or riding a bike to work, even though that contribution is utterly negligible.
minikites 7y ago
Individual actions can't solve a collective problem. I can go vegetarian, walk everywhere, never take a plane or ship for my entire life and all of that savings would be eaten up by a supertanker burning bunker fuel going a few miles off course or a chemical company vomiting waste into a river. The only way to solve these problems is at the national government and international organization level.
avalys 7y ago
Rather than endlessly agonize about individual industries, pursuits, and interests, let’s just tax carbon emissions until they’re reduced to an acceptable level, and let the market sort the rest out. If travel is valuable to you, pay for it.
- gnode 7y ago
  I think something missing from this, is that people wouldn't just stop doing things. People will still want to travel, and have air conditioning, so large incentives will exist to develop technologies that make this possible without the emissions. The greener alternatives will be relatively less expensive when the externalities of fossil fuels are priced in.
  - geff82 7y ago
    We really have to push for new technologies and be ok with subsidizing them in order to help mass adoption and lower prices. Only a few people really think we should stop doing X or Y (even if they are really vocal). Instead of feeling bad, let us find a better solution that actually makes life even more worthwile. Why not aim for making travelling cheaper and even more available, while at the same time make it environmental friendly, quiter, better? See, I am a private pilot for example. And I HATE those combustion engines we still use on our Cessnas. So outdated, loud and they are quite unreliable. I would totally LOVE the day when I can do a 500k trip with the family using electric technology, as most probably this will be a lot safer to use, it will be quiter and a lot cheaper to fuek (good news: it looks like fouseater planes with good range will become a reality soon).Or thin about cruiseships: why not find a way to use hydrogen (which could be a side product of using renewable energies). Or go back to big sailships again. I do not know about you, but to me, a sustainable future simply looks and feels amazing. We have to change things, but if done right, we don't really have to stop things.
    - gnode 7y ago
      > I would totally LOVE the day when I can do a 500k trip with the family using electric technology This seems to be fairly close. The Pipistrel Panthera looks quite promising, for instance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipistrel_Panthera#Specifications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipistrel_Panthera#Specificati... "Hybrid range is 758 mi or 1,220 km; Electric range is 249 mi or 400 km" > I do not know about you, but to me, a sustainable future simply looks and feels amazing. I agree. Losing our technological dependence on fossil fuels is very freeing. I can imagine this resulting in a future where energy is also a lot cheaper, as there is a lot of potential for solar and nuclear power to see reductions in cost as the technologies improve and benefit from economies of scale. Conversely oil and gas become scarcer and more expensive.
buboard 7y ago
I feel like some of the biggest offenders are scientists attending conferences. Is there an estimate of the research budget % spent on travel expenses?
- jobigoud 7y ago
  Why pick on scientists? Engineering and all industries and hobbies have conferences all around the planet. Convention centers of major cities are probably booked all year long. Not sure how much that contributes though.
  - buboard 7y ago
    Because it's the one that is easier to control. and perhaps if scientists make the first step , corporates will follow
- vkou 7y ago
  Unless you think that 3 out of every 5 days of a climate scientist's job is flying around the world, attending conferences, their travel budget is much lower then what is spent on putting food on their tables, and roofs over their heads.
  - buboard 7y ago
    Yeah its just not practical to take their food. Plus i m not talking only about climate scientists
joshvm 7y ago
No mention of rail? Not a solution in the US, but virtually all of Europe and Asia is connected by a dense, largely inexpensive, rail network which is increasingly being electrified. That puts the onus on the grid, but there is a trend towards lower carbon electricity so emissions should lower over time. You can walk and cycle the rest of the way. The reason we fly is because its cheap, fast and convenient.
jniedrauer 7y ago
As someone who loves being out in the wilderness, this has been fairly depressing to me. The more time I spend out there, the more I damage it. I didn't feel guilty during the winter, because I was always moving on snow, and I was generally the only one out there. But as it gets warmer and the snow melts, hoards of people from Seattle descend on the wilderness and trample it to death. And I'm one of them.
- jcroll 7y ago
  Wait, walking outside is a sin now
  - jniedrauer 7y ago
    It is when 10,000 people want to walk in the same place
    - etrautmann 7y ago
      No - stay on trails in high traffic areas and know the basic Leave No Trace principles: https://lnt.org/why/7-principles/ https://lnt.org/why/7-principles/
      - jniedrauer 7y ago
        Have you ever hiked the AT? Or certain sections of the PCT? The trail is cut 2-3 feet into the ground in some places. To stake out a tent, you have to drive stakes into fragile alpine soil, which then runs off down the mountain the next time it rains. Leaving no trace is easier said than done.
        etrautmann 7y ago
        Yes, of course it's impossible to literally leave zero trace, but with education and the intent to respect nature, it's possible to radically reduce ones impact to the point where no one should feel guilty about enjoying the natural environment. In many areas (such as delicate alpine areas) that's managed through permitting and restrictions on the numbers of people, though of course it still requires those permitted people to follow best practices and attempt to minimize their impact.
tbirrell 7y ago
Pursuant to the arguments that ships are "even worse" than planes, it is worth noting that a lot of ships (especially cargo) are built specifically to burn bunker fuel (residual oil left over after gasoline, diesel and other light hydrocarbons are extracted from crude oil). This is partly because the thought is that _someone_ will burn it, so you might as well use it in the middle of the ocean, away from all the pollutants generated by the land bound population. And realistically, that's the best thing you can do for the environment until such time as literally everyone on earth agrees to not use it (which is staggeringly unlikely). Because by burning on its own in the middle of nowhere, the ecosystem is can handle it without fuss. Whereas burning it on land (in a power plant presumably), you merely help overload that ecosystem since it is already having to handle everything else.
- pjc50 7y ago
  Bunker fuel is "crackable". It can be made into lighter fuels and the sulphur removed, it's just expensive to do so.
Dkastro92 7y ago
The only way to fight climate change is to tax carbon at a global scale, and that is nearly imposible considering the current world politics
- fooblitzky 7y ago
  One way I've heard is to have an import duty on carbon at the border. You have your internal tax on carbon at the source, nationally. If another country has a similar tax, their goods can be imported without extra duties. If they don't, you assess the goods imported and charge the equivalent duty. If the carbon tax rate is different you can pro-rate. That way, local producers aren't competing against cheap, dirty, manufacturing overseas, and other countries are encouraged to assess their own carbon tax to avoid the import duties. It's a very fair system that allows countries to onboard one at a time, instead of all together. Unfortunately it would probably be considered illegal under the WTO.
  - Dkastro92 7y ago
    Im sorry if I didin't understand: "If another country has a similar tax, their goods can be imported without extra duties. If they don't, you assess the goods imported and charge the equivalent duty." The equivalent duty meaning same as carbon taxers or less? (asuming non carbon taxers have less duty)
- nextweek2 7y ago
  You are absolutely right, a current example of that is the Yellow Vest Movement in France: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_movement When I first heard about it, I thought it was a movement which is not caring about the environment. That 1 million French are vocally opposed to the environment. It's more complex than that but taxing carbon would lead to protests of the masses.
fghtr 7y ago
No. Here is what we actually should do: http://www.kimnicholas.com/uploads/2/5/7/6/25766487/fig1full.jpg http://www.kimnicholas.com/uploads/2/5/7/6/25766487/fig1full... Upd: apart from the carbon tax, of course.
- gnode 7y ago
  We should actually solve the problem collectively. The externalities should be priced into the cost of fossil fuels with taxation, and alternative technologies researched (which would likely be done by the private sector, facing a carbon tax). Individualistic solutions to climate change are unfair, dilute, and primitivist.
- buboard 7y ago
  I mean, transatlantic flight is #3 on that list. If however you want to target directly #1, then i hope people from africa are seeing this.
FartyMcFarter 7y ago
> “The average American causes through his/her greenhouse gas emissions the serious suffering and/or deaths of two future people.” But if those future people are two Americans (or similar in terms of pollution), that saves four future people, doesn't it? That was a ridiculous assumption of course, but if we're going to go utilitarian, let's go all the way.
tengbretson 7y ago
The NYT is making money from selling despair. They ought to be ashamed.

32 points by hbgb 7y ago

Heating your home "ruins" the world. You probably wont die at 40*F inside your home, but it sure would suck living that type winter. So does cooling it during the summer, so do many other modern amenities, etc... At some point it begs the question: Is the world you are preserving worth living? Sure, there are billions of people that don't have any of these amenities in life, but it is mostly by necessity and they can't afford any better... So, is travel necessary? No. Is traveling something you should feel guilty about, probably not.

eeZah7Ux 7y ago
> Is the world you are preserving worth living? Future generations would like to exist. Perhaps in people year 5000 will put 2019 in the same bucket with the dark ages.
- beat 7y ago
  The last human being will eat the last cockroach. Pollution and climate change are not an existential crisis for humanity. We're just not that powerful (yet). Humans have survived, and thrived, in far worse conditions than we are experiencing today, or that climate change is likely to cause, and it was done without the benefits of modern technology. (Really, conditions are better now because of modern technology.)

ctlby 7y ago

If we take climate change activists at their word, the answer is a resounding YES. There is a full-blown crisis brewing, one that can only be resolved with massive social changes ("if everyone does a little, we’ll achieve only a little" [1]). The NYT should be pushing much more draconian measures. [1] https://www.withouthotair.com/c1/page_3.shtml https://www.withouthotair.com/c1/page_3.shtml

dv_dt 7y ago
I think there is a PR war going on to push the responsibility of climate crisis fixes onto personal actions in order to avoid actual widescale industrial changes. We can create fuel from carbon and at least for the air sector it makes reasonable sense - even if that increases the cost of travel. Airlines like other corporations want to avoid specific requirements like that that as a regulation.
jcroll 7y ago
You can curb the consumption of anything with a tax, unfortunately getting the political capital to implement one is another thing. It looks sadly like the climate will have to change quite a bit more until that possible

ve55 7y ago

No. Leading a completely utilitarian life based only on the metric of estimating the emissions produced by your actions (and then, only first-order effects) is not only completely infeasible, but is also not a solution to global warming.

bubblewrap 7y ago
We are talking about a comparatively pointless activity with a huge carbon footprint. There are plenty of other ways to enjoy life.

geff82 7y ago

The recent argument against traveling is a proxy war. Heating, cooling, electricity and driving are the things that make up 75% of the emissions, plus about 20% for industrial production. All of the points I listed can be replaced by sustainable alternatives TODAY (ok, maybe not all people in one year, but the products are available) without us having to reduce out comfort in a major way. We could travel 5 times more than now when we switched away from technology mostly invented about 120 years ago and still have a better environment.

bubblewrap 7y ago
Really - what solution is there for heating and cooling? Especially given that insulating houses with plastic seems to cause other problems like mold, or pollution with toxins to prevent mold? And driving? People could just stay home, I suppose?
- eropple 7y ago
  > And driving? People could just stay home, I suppose? Walk. Bicycle. Use public transit. In extremity, buy an electric car (but that has issues, too). If your question is "what should people who live, heavily subsidized, in suburbs and exurbs, do?", then the answer teases itself out pretty elegantly.
  - happytoexplain 7y ago
    Why the dismissive attitude about where people live?
    - fowkswe 7y ago
      If you are consciously making decisions to not live a carbon heavy life, you'd naturally choose to not live in a ex/suburb.
      - mfatica 7y ago
        So we should all pile into cities? Do you realize how ridiculous that is? We can't concentrate everyone in a walkable / bikeable area, it's just not feasible.

eeZah7Ux 7y ago

Yes. Consumerism and conspicuous consumption include travel and other services. You can instead stay home and read a book. Perhaps on a slow, eco-friendly journey every few years.

fastball 7y ago
Who is it I'm saving the world for if not myself or my children?
- bubblewrap 7y ago
  He didn't say you shouldn't have kids. My kids read books, too.
  - beat 7y ago
    Sadly, a lot of people say we shouldn't have kids because it's bad for the Earth. Which ties to poor arguments about "overpopulation".
    - bubblewrap 7y ago
      What are poor arguments about overpopulation? Clearly overpopulation is part of the problem.
      - beat 7y ago
        Is it? When countries modernize their economies, the birth rate plummets to near-replacement rates over the course of about two generations. Take Iran, for example. In 1980, their birthrate was around 6. Today, it's lower than Europe. What population growth we're seeing today is mostly due to increased lifespan, not high birth rates.
        bubblewrap 7y ago
        First, I think most population growth is in "3rd world countries", so your theory of increased lifespan being the culprit doesn't really hold. The theory that growth slows with economic improvements is nice, but it is not a law of nature. Besides even with no more growth, we still have billions of people who want to raise their lifestyle to Western levels, increasing their CO2 footprint by orders of magnitude. And another way to look at it: if there were only 10000 humans on earth, they would probably have a difficult time trying to move CO2 levels by a significant amount, or producing significant amounts of plastic, and so on. So clearly population size is a part of the problem.

kevin_b_er 7y ago

The Tragedy of the Commons prevent this. You cannot solve it solely by making yourself "use nothing" when others will abuse that to take more for themselves. It will not solve the problem when the rich have enough resources to do the ruining themselves no matter what you do.

eafkuor 7y ago

And now I have to feel guilty about this too. What a life :/

gridlockd 7y ago
You don't have to. People always worry about destroying nature, they don't worry so much about nature destroying them. Let's say you were stranded in the arctic and met one of those poor polar bears. He'd rip you to pieces just for the heck of it. He's a goddamn killer with no remorse. He's not going to feel guilty. So fuck that polar bear and the ice sheet he lives on. We don't owe him a damn thing. We're going to grill this planet and then terraform it right back again, maybe. Or maybe we'll all die in the process. But we shouldn't feel guilty about it. Nature put us at the top of the food chain, it's going to have to deal with the consequences.
- AQuantized 7y ago
  This seems like an odd perspective. We aren't polar bears and I don't know why their intellectual incapacity to empathize with their prey should have any bearing on how we feel about destroying them or their environment.
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    Let's say it was an even more unpleasant animal. Imagine one of these brain-eating parasitic worms. How much quality of life would you personally be willing to give up on, to save those worms and their environment?
redthrow 7y ago
If it makes you feel better, Elon Musk flies around in his private jet while tweeting "why not go renewable now?" rather than taking a more nuanced stance.
- DesiLurker 7y ago
  these type of arguments are really immature and dishonest. So what if a billionaire or a world leader is flying around in Jet. How is that an argument for us to destroy our habitat for future generations. statistically speaking how much of global warming is cause by private jets vs the rest of it? if the 'influencers' are not gonna talk about it then who else is? and will it matter? if you take a step back & see you'll notice these type of arguments are designed to evoke an emotional response in a casual observer so they dont feel the need/desire to further engage in the (admittedly) marginally interesting topic.

bubblewrap 7y ago

"But actually this summer, we’re going to Greece" He does all the calculations, is more informed than the average person, and still decides to just go for it. This is why the battle against global warming is pointless. Human population explosion (triggered by the invention of agriculture) will simply run its course, and we'll just have to live with whatever world we'll be left with in the end. Yes, he is buying "offsets" for his family, but most of them are clearly a scam, and he also seems to be aware of that. Trees take years to grow, and capture carbon in the ground, not in the higher atmosphere. Methane would probably be burned anyway, nice for the operators that the can make some extra bucks selling the "offsets". As for travel: buy a big TV. There are movies from beautiful places all over the world. Then go swimming in a lake nearby. No need to travel thousands of miles for that. What is so important about visiting Greece? I live in Europe and I have never been to Greece. Nevertheless, I have some ideas about its culture. I've seen photographs, read the Iliad, talked to Greek people, and so on.

inertiatic 7y ago
Oh wow. This could be satire and I wouldn't be able to tell. What's so important about experiencing anything? Just watch TV.
- buboard 7y ago
  It's hyperbole, but its partly true. I live in greece and see those tourists. We live in a tourist bubble, fueled by social media, airbnb and pretty instagram pictures. Tourists are overreporting the value of their experience, as in most cases i know they are getting a prepackaged experience, which is same for everyone, in a beautiful environment but really not always meaningful. Local cultures are diluted everywhere, and when they are preserved in touristy places it's artificial. Tourism nowadays is largely escapism, not much different from VR or gaming. I wish people started actually moving to other places instead of just visiting. A mass emigration to more temperate climates would also reduce heating costs massively.
  - antisemiotic 7y ago

gridlockd 7y ago

"Each additional metric ton of carbon dioxide or its equivalent — your share of the emissions on a cross-country flight one-way from New York to Los Angeles — shrinks the summer sea ice cover by 3 square meters, or 32 square feet, the authors, Dirk Notz and Julienne Stroeve, found." Those picture-like analogies may be very effective, but I immediately call bullshit. I want to know a percentage. Let's say 100% of air travel was removed, how much CO2 is that in savings, percentage-wise? It's two percent[1]. If you just told people it was two percent, they would immediately proceed to not give a damn. Only the most dogmatic of people would be giving up a major freedom in their life just to save a theoretical two percent on CO2. [1] https://www.atag.org/facts-figures.html https://www.atag.org/facts-figures.html

bpfrh 7y ago
That figure is misleading. In the uk the domnestic aviation accounts for 22% of the transportation sector. Airtravel is a luxtury and unfortunately in a crises that should be the first to go. At least domnestic flights should be banned immediately. Will it solve our Problem? No. Will it help solve our Problem? Yes, because it is one of the things we can get easily ride of. Nobody says you can't travel anymore, just take the train.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  Your 22% figure is misleading. It makes it sound significant, but it's not. In reality, anything that people in the UK can do regarding domestic CO2 is insignificant to world CO2 emissions. They could be 100% carbon neutral and it wouldn't make a dent. Instead of giving up on liberties and wasting money on tiny gains on CO2 savings, the UK should be using it towards developing technologies for the rest of the world to thrive on - without emitting so much CO2. That's not what people want to hear though. They want to feel significant. They want to feel good about themselves because they're eating vegan or riding a bike to work, even though that contribution is utterly negligible.

minikites 7y ago

Individual actions can't solve a collective problem. I can go vegetarian, walk everywhere, never take a plane or ship for my entire life and all of that savings would be eaten up by a supertanker burning bunker fuel going a few miles off course or a chemical company vomiting waste into a river. The only way to solve these problems is at the national government and international organization level.

avalys 7y ago

Rather than endlessly agonize about individual industries, pursuits, and interests, let’s just tax carbon emissions until they’re reduced to an acceptable level, and let the market sort the rest out. If travel is valuable to you, pay for it.

gnode 7y ago
I think something missing from this, is that people wouldn't just stop doing things. People will still want to travel, and have air conditioning, so large incentives will exist to develop technologies that make this possible without the emissions. The greener alternatives will be relatively less expensive when the externalities of fossil fuels are priced in.
- geff82 7y ago
  We really have to push for new technologies and be ok with subsidizing them in order to help mass adoption and lower prices. Only a few people really think we should stop doing X or Y (even if they are really vocal). Instead of feeling bad, let us find a better solution that actually makes life even more worthwile. Why not aim for making travelling cheaper and even more available, while at the same time make it environmental friendly, quiter, better? See, I am a private pilot for example. And I HATE those combustion engines we still use on our Cessnas. So outdated, loud and they are quite unreliable. I would totally LOVE the day when I can do a 500k trip with the family using electric technology, as most probably this will be a lot safer to use, it will be quiter and a lot cheaper to fuek (good news: it looks like fouseater planes with good range will become a reality soon).Or thin about cruiseships: why not find a way to use hydrogen (which could be a side product of using renewable energies). Or go back to big sailships again. I do not know about you, but to me, a sustainable future simply looks and feels amazing. We have to change things, but if done right, we don't really have to stop things.
  - gnode 7y ago
    > I would totally LOVE the day when I can do a 500k trip with the family using electric technology This seems to be fairly close. The Pipistrel Panthera looks quite promising, for instance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipistrel_Panthera#Specifications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipistrel_Panthera#Specificati... "Hybrid range is 758 mi or 1,220 km; Electric range is 249 mi or 400 km" > I do not know about you, but to me, a sustainable future simply looks and feels amazing. I agree. Losing our technological dependence on fossil fuels is very freeing. I can imagine this resulting in a future where energy is also a lot cheaper, as there is a lot of potential for solar and nuclear power to see reductions in cost as the technologies improve and benefit from economies of scale. Conversely oil and gas become scarcer and more expensive.

buboard 7y ago

I feel like some of the biggest offenders are scientists attending conferences. Is there an estimate of the research budget % spent on travel expenses?

jobigoud 7y ago
Why pick on scientists? Engineering and all industries and hobbies have conferences all around the planet. Convention centers of major cities are probably booked all year long. Not sure how much that contributes though.
- buboard 7y ago
  Because it's the one that is easier to control. and perhaps if scientists make the first step , corporates will follow
vkou 7y ago
Unless you think that 3 out of every 5 days of a climate scientist's job is flying around the world, attending conferences, their travel budget is much lower then what is spent on putting food on their tables, and roofs over their heads.
- buboard 7y ago
  Yeah its just not practical to take their food. Plus i m not talking only about climate scientists

joshvm 7y ago

No mention of rail? Not a solution in the US, but virtually all of Europe and Asia is connected by a dense, largely inexpensive, rail network which is increasingly being electrified. That puts the onus on the grid, but there is a trend towards lower carbon electricity so emissions should lower over time. You can walk and cycle the rest of the way. The reason we fly is because its cheap, fast and convenient.

jniedrauer 7y ago

As someone who loves being out in the wilderness, this has been fairly depressing to me. The more time I spend out there, the more I damage it. I didn't feel guilty during the winter, because I was always moving on snow, and I was generally the only one out there. But as it gets warmer and the snow melts, hoards of people from Seattle descend on the wilderness and trample it to death. And I'm one of them.

jcroll 7y ago
Wait, walking outside is a sin now
- jniedrauer 7y ago
  It is when 10,000 people want to walk in the same place
  - etrautmann 7y ago
    No - stay on trails in high traffic areas and know the basic Leave No Trace principles: https://lnt.org/why/7-principles/ https://lnt.org/why/7-principles/
    - jniedrauer 7y ago
      Have you ever hiked the AT? Or certain sections of the PCT? The trail is cut 2-3 feet into the ground in some places. To stake out a tent, you have to drive stakes into fragile alpine soil, which then runs off down the mountain the next time it rains. Leaving no trace is easier said than done.
      - etrautmann 7y ago
        Yes, of course it's impossible to literally leave zero trace, but with education and the intent to respect nature, it's possible to radically reduce ones impact to the point where no one should feel guilty about enjoying the natural environment. In many areas (such as delicate alpine areas) that's managed through permitting and restrictions on the numbers of people, though of course it still requires those permitted people to follow best practices and attempt to minimize their impact.

tbirrell 7y ago

Pursuant to the arguments that ships are "even worse" than planes, it is worth noting that a lot of ships (especially cargo) are built specifically to burn bunker fuel (residual oil left over after gasoline, diesel and other light hydrocarbons are extracted from crude oil). This is partly because the thought is that _someone_ will burn it, so you might as well use it in the middle of the ocean, away from all the pollutants generated by the land bound population. And realistically, that's the best thing you can do for the environment until such time as literally everyone on earth agrees to not use it (which is staggeringly unlikely). Because by burning on its own in the middle of nowhere, the ecosystem is can handle it without fuss. Whereas burning it on land (in a power plant presumably), you merely help overload that ecosystem since it is already having to handle everything else.

pjc50 7y ago
Bunker fuel is "crackable". It can be made into lighter fuels and the sulphur removed, it's just expensive to do so.

Dkastro92 7y ago

The only way to fight climate change is to tax carbon at a global scale, and that is nearly imposible considering the current world politics

fooblitzky 7y ago
One way I've heard is to have an import duty on carbon at the border. You have your internal tax on carbon at the source, nationally. If another country has a similar tax, their goods can be imported without extra duties. If they don't, you assess the goods imported and charge the equivalent duty. If the carbon tax rate is different you can pro-rate. That way, local producers aren't competing against cheap, dirty, manufacturing overseas, and other countries are encouraged to assess their own carbon tax to avoid the import duties. It's a very fair system that allows countries to onboard one at a time, instead of all together. Unfortunately it would probably be considered illegal under the WTO.
- Dkastro92 7y ago
  Im sorry if I didin't understand: "If another country has a similar tax, their goods can be imported without extra duties. If they don't, you assess the goods imported and charge the equivalent duty." The equivalent duty meaning same as carbon taxers or less? (asuming non carbon taxers have less duty)
nextweek2 7y ago
You are absolutely right, a current example of that is the Yellow Vest Movement in France: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_movement When I first heard about it, I thought it was a movement which is not caring about the environment. That 1 million French are vocally opposed to the environment. It's more complex than that but taxing carbon would lead to protests of the masses.

fghtr 7y ago

No. Here is what we actually should do: http://www.kimnicholas.com/uploads/2/5/7/6/25766487/fig1full.jpg http://www.kimnicholas.com/uploads/2/5/7/6/25766487/fig1full... Upd: apart from the carbon tax, of course.

gnode 7y ago
We should actually solve the problem collectively. The externalities should be priced into the cost of fossil fuels with taxation, and alternative technologies researched (which would likely be done by the private sector, facing a carbon tax). Individualistic solutions to climate change are unfair, dilute, and primitivist.
buboard 7y ago
I mean, transatlantic flight is #3 on that list. If however you want to target directly #1, then i hope people from africa are seeing this.

FartyMcFarter 7y ago

> “The average American causes through his/her greenhouse gas emissions the serious suffering and/or deaths of two future people.” But if those future people are two Americans (or similar in terms of pollution), that saves four future people, doesn't it? That was a ridiculous assumption of course, but if we're going to go utilitarian, let's go all the way.

tengbretson 7y ago

The NYT is making money from selling despair. They ought to be ashamed.