5 ms·

If you solution to a problem is “massive reduction in critically important infrastructure”, then you might not have a solution.

fulafel 7y ago
You can call a lot of things "critical infrastructure" but it doesn't mean we can't phase out many of those those things in an orderly fashion. It just means dependencies we've added to our life, many of which are very recent. We have to make compromises, unless we prefer to lose the global warming battle. Humanity's benefits from cheap air travel are much less than losses from unchecked climate change.
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  This argument has absolutely no basis in economics. There is currently a particular demand for air travel. If you want to reduce that demand, you can only do one of the following things: 1. Create a competing product that people prefer over air travel. 2. Artificially increase the price through taxation. 3. Artificially decrease supply through regulation. There’s nothing on the horizon for option 1, and since we live in a democracy, democratic mechanisms are the only means you have for 2 or 3, unless you wanted to resort to something like terrorism. Your presupposition that we can’t have cheap air travel while avoiding catastrophic man-made climate change is in no way obviously true, and your suggested solution is a utopian fantasy.
  - fulafel 7y ago
    Your argument presupposes that we let the free market run its course, but it's widely agreed that co2 emission controls will have to involve regulation or market steeting such as emissions trading.
    - AmericanChopper 7y ago
      Putting aside for a moment the fact that the most significant reductions in emissions have been generated by free market activity. You haven’t proposed gentle market steering and incentive creation, you quite literally suggested the “phasing out” of air travel.
      - zzzcpan 7y ago
        > the most significant reductions in emissions have been generated by free market activity Not sure what you mean, globally there are no reductions in emissions. And you would have to phase out a lot more than just air travel. Personal cars too and overall reduce consumption like ten fold or more, basically destroy this whole capitalism-driven consumerist way of life.
        AmericanChopper 7y ago
        That’s only true if you pretend growth isn’t occurring. Every Mwh of renewable energy consumed is one less Mwh oh fossile fuels that would have been burned, and the market is producing more and more of those every year. This anti-capitalism stuff seems completely irrelevant too. Every economy is based on consumption, even socialist ones. The only reason the USSR didn’t have as many car owners as the USA is because their economy was in a permanent state of crisis. Market forces don’t go away when you implement socialism.
        zzzcpan 7y ago
        There is growth in emissions globally. Because forced consumption of non-economical renewable energy doesn't actually work due to the same market forces you speak about. It just makes some rich people richer and others poorer. Resulting in more demand for cheaper products and services that subsequently create more demand for cheaper energy from places where there is no forced consumption of non-economical renewable energy. > Every economy is based on consumption I'm talking about buying a tesla level of consumerism, that's not everyone in every economy, but relatively few and they are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
tonyedgecombe 7y ago
Flying on such a huge scale is a relatively recent occurrence, very little of it is critical, the world isn't going to end because you can't holiday in Bali.
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  Airports are a part of every country’s critical infrastructure. > the world isn't going to end because you can't holiday in Bali Perhaps not. But the Balinese economy would simply collapse. I’m sure the Balinese economy is of critical importance to the ~4 million people who live there. What you’ve chosen as a contrived example doesn’t even illustrate your point.
  - tonyedgecombe 7y ago
    On the other hand: https://www.worldcrunch.com/food-travel/how-mass-tourism-is-destroying-bali-and-its-culture https://www.worldcrunch.com/food-travel/how-mass-tourism-is-... perfectly illustrates the problems with your thinking.
    - AmericanChopper 7y ago
      My thinking doesn’t have anything to do with it, it’s simply a fact that 80% of Bali’s economy is tourism. An industry specifically promoted by the Indonesian government as a long standing policy. “But, what if tourism wasn’t critical to the Balinese economy, what if they had instead spend the last 50 years developing a different industry” you might say. Well, who knows. But they didn’t, and the criticality of air travel to Bali is not up for any meaningful debate.
      - Tharkun 7y ago
        This argument doesn't hold much water. Sure, it might be technically correct for Balinese ecomomy. But lots of people fly lots of places for very capricious reasons. If vacation is the goal, then everyone can go on a trip a bit closer to home without flying. Certain major tourism centers will lose out, but on average, there will be just as many tourists, just in different places. Air travel is far too cheap, everything else follows from that.

fulafel 7y ago

You can call a lot of things "critical infrastructure" but it doesn't mean we can't phase out many of those those things in an orderly fashion. It just means dependencies we've added to our life, many of which are very recent. We have to make compromises, unless we prefer to lose the global warming battle. Humanity's benefits from cheap air travel are much less than losses from unchecked climate change.

AmericanChopper 7y ago
This argument has absolutely no basis in economics. There is currently a particular demand for air travel. If you want to reduce that demand, you can only do one of the following things: 1. Create a competing product that people prefer over air travel. 2. Artificially increase the price through taxation. 3. Artificially decrease supply through regulation. There’s nothing on the horizon for option 1, and since we live in a democracy, democratic mechanisms are the only means you have for 2 or 3, unless you wanted to resort to something like terrorism. Your presupposition that we can’t have cheap air travel while avoiding catastrophic man-made climate change is in no way obviously true, and your suggested solution is a utopian fantasy.
- fulafel 7y ago
  Your argument presupposes that we let the free market run its course, but it's widely agreed that co2 emission controls will have to involve regulation or market steeting such as emissions trading.
  - AmericanChopper 7y ago
    Putting aside for a moment the fact that the most significant reductions in emissions have been generated by free market activity. You haven’t proposed gentle market steering and incentive creation, you quite literally suggested the “phasing out” of air travel.
    - zzzcpan 7y ago
      > the most significant reductions in emissions have been generated by free market activity Not sure what you mean, globally there are no reductions in emissions. And you would have to phase out a lot more than just air travel. Personal cars too and overall reduce consumption like ten fold or more, basically destroy this whole capitalism-driven consumerist way of life.
      - AmericanChopper 7y ago
        That’s only true if you pretend growth isn’t occurring. Every Mwh of renewable energy consumed is one less Mwh oh fossile fuels that would have been burned, and the market is producing more and more of those every year. This anti-capitalism stuff seems completely irrelevant too. Every economy is based on consumption, even socialist ones. The only reason the USSR didn’t have as many car owners as the USA is because their economy was in a permanent state of crisis. Market forces don’t go away when you implement socialism.
        zzzcpan 7y ago
        There is growth in emissions globally. Because forced consumption of non-economical renewable energy doesn't actually work due to the same market forces you speak about. It just makes some rich people richer and others poorer. Resulting in more demand for cheaper products and services that subsequently create more demand for cheaper energy from places where there is no forced consumption of non-economical renewable energy. > Every economy is based on consumption I'm talking about buying a tesla level of consumerism, that's not everyone in every economy, but relatively few and they are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

tonyedgecombe 7y ago

Flying on such a huge scale is a relatively recent occurrence, very little of it is critical, the world isn't going to end because you can't holiday in Bali.

AmericanChopper 7y ago
Airports are a part of every country’s critical infrastructure. > the world isn't going to end because you can't holiday in Bali Perhaps not. But the Balinese economy would simply collapse. I’m sure the Balinese economy is of critical importance to the ~4 million people who live there. What you’ve chosen as a contrived example doesn’t even illustrate your point.
- tonyedgecombe 7y ago
  On the other hand: https://www.worldcrunch.com/food-travel/how-mass-tourism-is-destroying-bali-and-its-culture https://www.worldcrunch.com/food-travel/how-mass-tourism-is-... perfectly illustrates the problems with your thinking.
  - AmericanChopper 7y ago
    My thinking doesn’t have anything to do with it, it’s simply a fact that 80% of Bali’s economy is tourism. An industry specifically promoted by the Indonesian government as a long standing policy. “But, what if tourism wasn’t critical to the Balinese economy, what if they had instead spend the last 50 years developing a different industry” you might say. Well, who knows. But they didn’t, and the criticality of air travel to Bali is not up for any meaningful debate.
    - Tharkun 7y ago
      This argument doesn't hold much water. Sure, it might be technically correct for Balinese ecomomy. But lots of people fly lots of places for very capricious reasons. If vacation is the goal, then everyone can go on a trip a bit closer to home without flying. Certain major tourism centers will lose out, but on average, there will be just as many tourists, just in different places. Air travel is far too cheap, everything else follows from that.