4 ms·

so, the average total carbon emission per person is 4.5 tons, and your flying alone is 13? Isn't it better that you/we change your/our air spending habits? I d

so, the average total carbon emission per person is 4.5 tons, and your flying alone is 13? Isn't it better that you/we change your/our air spending habits? I don't believe that we can offset our carbon footprint fast enough with carbon sinks while still maintaing the same levels of carbon emission. Reality of course is that if there is significant upfront economic costs then very few people are going to buy into the scheme, I think innovation is our best bet and if $100 per ton is a price point where people are in then that's probablly the best pragmatic choice. However, needless transport seems a great target for emission reduction, we still need to get around, but "commuting" while emitting carbon would seem the easiest way to reduce carbon emissions, we have all the tech we need for that (public transport/remote work/online shopping/ride sharing/EVS/reduced work weeks) just no incentive to change.

esotericn 7y ago
The average in the US is about 16. I agree that the correct solution is to just whack a carbon tax on flights. It's ideal if people voluntarily reduce - I've committed myself to not flying except in case of family emergency - but ultimately that's not going to solve the problem because it's a tragedy of the commons.
ncallaway 7y ago
If you add the cost of $100 per ton to the price of the plane ticket, you would see some amount of travel reduction naturally. What travel reduction we would have would, at that point, pay for the appropriate sequestration. Honestly, it sounds like we should just require everyone to buy 100% sequestration for their carbon production (priced into the goods and services). Add a phase in over, say 10 years to.
- fyfy18 7y ago
  I'd like to see companies actually track how much CO2 goes into the production of their products. Imagine if everything you buy had the equivalent of an EnergyGuide sticker for CO2 emissions used in the production of that thing. It would lead to companies trying to optimise their products to reduce CO2 used in the manufacturing process.
  - ncallaway 7y ago
    Yea, that makes sense, then gives you an easy path to charging a tax with revenues going to offsets or sequestration based on the number on the sticker.
  - esotericn 7y ago
    Agree. This should be legislated just as calories are today. You could ratchet up the severity of the legislation slowly; initially you might allow estimates, over time you could start to audit the supply chain etc. Some items do already expose this information, but it's pretty much all stuff for the eco market. Though I remember Walkers' crisps doing this ten years back. 80g for a packet of crisps. Or about 3kg CO2 per 1kg crisps. Doesn't include final transportation though.

esotericn 7y ago

The average in the US is about 16. I agree that the correct solution is to just whack a carbon tax on flights. It's ideal if people voluntarily reduce - I've committed myself to not flying except in case of family emergency - but ultimately that's not going to solve the problem because it's a tragedy of the commons.

ncallaway 7y ago

If you add the cost of $100 per ton to the price of the plane ticket, you would see some amount of travel reduction naturally. What travel reduction we would have would, at that point, pay for the appropriate sequestration. Honestly, it sounds like we should just require everyone to buy 100% sequestration for their carbon production (priced into the goods and services). Add a phase in over, say 10 years to.

fyfy18 7y ago
I'd like to see companies actually track how much CO2 goes into the production of their products. Imagine if everything you buy had the equivalent of an EnergyGuide sticker for CO2 emissions used in the production of that thing. It would lead to companies trying to optimise their products to reduce CO2 used in the manufacturing process.
- ncallaway 7y ago
  Yea, that makes sense, then gives you an easy path to charging a tax with revenues going to offsets or sequestration based on the number on the sticker.
- esotericn 7y ago
  Agree. This should be legislated just as calories are today. You could ratchet up the severity of the legislation slowly; initially you might allow estimates, over time you could start to audit the supply chain etc. Some items do already expose this information, but it's pretty much all stuff for the eco market. Though I remember Walkers' crisps doing this ten years back. 80g for a packet of crisps. Or about 3kg CO2 per 1kg crisps. Doesn't include final transportation though.