3 ms·

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

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.
    - AmericanChopper 7y ago
      So we’ve gone from the idea that air travel wasn’t critical infrastructure, with Bali as the example, to essentially saying “but what if the world was completely different from the way it actually is”. Does that mean you agree that it is critical infrastructure? > Air travel is far too cheap, everything else follows from that. This is another outrageous claim. All aviation accounts for about 2% of global emissions. The people commenting in this thread have chosen tourism, presumably because they think it’s the most frivolous source of aviation emissions. But even this is obviously critical to global economies. On top of that, the proposed solution amounts to complete economic isolationism. An idea I’m honestly surprised to see promoted on HN. Suggesting that the world could possibly completely different from the way it actually is, and that the foundations of the global economy aren’t necessary isn’t suggesting a solution. It’s just utopian navel gazing.
      - tonyedgecombe 7y ago
        That 2% figure is dubious, most reputable sources put it at 4%. On top of that the IPCC has estimated that the climate impact of aircraft is two to four times greater than the effect of their carbon dioxide emissions alone.
        AmericanChopper 7y ago
        The 2% number is from the IPCC, and carbon emissions from planes have the same climate impact as carbon emissions from any other source (according to the IPCC). But just for the sake of argument, let’s say the number is much higher than that. Let’s say it was 10%, 5x higher than the IPCC claims it is. It still poses a negligible impact to the climate, and has the least ROI or any of the major contributors to carbon emissions. Electricity consumption is by far the biggest contributor, and is by far the easiest to solve. If we were to solve those problems, there’d be no need to even worry about aviation at all. This idea that all carbon emissions are terrible and must be eliminated is entirely counter productive, and entirely impossible.
        7y ago
adrianN 7y ago
Bali's largest city is at 4m elevation. The oceans are rising and the coral reefs around the island are dying. Bali has no economic future if we don't stop global warming.
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  Where’s the model that predicts a 4m sea level rise? Even the most outlandish predictions don’t come close to that. But in any case, that’s largely irrelevant to my point. This argument presupposes that the only way to prevent catastrophic man-made climate change is to put an end to air travel. That’s such an outrageous thing to claim that you can’t simply act like it’s something that’s obvious true, and that everybody should already believe.
  - adrianN 7y ago
    You don't need to have the city completely under water to make it effectively uninhabitable. It's sufficient if it floods regularly during storms. Global sea levels are expected to rise 0.5-1m at just 2° of warming. We're on an emissions trajectory that will cause much more severe warming. We don't have to completely stop global air travel, but we have to make it significantly more expensive. The price to suck all the carbon out of the atmosphere again is not trivial. Long distance tourism will suffer from this.
    - AmericanChopper 7y ago
      Denpasar does flood regularly during storms. It always has. But that aside, all aviation accounts for about 2% of global emissions, with tourism only being a portions of that. What is your basis for claiming that the only way to avoid catastrophic man-made climate change is to significantly reduce air travel? There are so many more ways to reduce emissions, with much higher ROIs, and much less economic impact. Electricity generation and land transport are so much easier to make renewable. The idea that the future of the world depends on reducing air travel is simply laughable.
      - 7y ago

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.
  - AmericanChopper 7y ago
    So we’ve gone from the idea that air travel wasn’t critical infrastructure, with Bali as the example, to essentially saying “but what if the world was completely different from the way it actually is”. Does that mean you agree that it is critical infrastructure? > Air travel is far too cheap, everything else follows from that. This is another outrageous claim. All aviation accounts for about 2% of global emissions. The people commenting in this thread have chosen tourism, presumably because they think it’s the most frivolous source of aviation emissions. But even this is obviously critical to global economies. On top of that, the proposed solution amounts to complete economic isolationism. An idea I’m honestly surprised to see promoted on HN. Suggesting that the world could possibly completely different from the way it actually is, and that the foundations of the global economy aren’t necessary isn’t suggesting a solution. It’s just utopian navel gazing.
    - tonyedgecombe 7y ago
      That 2% figure is dubious, most reputable sources put it at 4%. On top of that the IPCC has estimated that the climate impact of aircraft is two to four times greater than the effect of their carbon dioxide emissions alone.
      - AmericanChopper 7y ago
        The 2% number is from the IPCC, and carbon emissions from planes have the same climate impact as carbon emissions from any other source (according to the IPCC). But just for the sake of argument, let’s say the number is much higher than that. Let’s say it was 10%, 5x higher than the IPCC claims it is. It still poses a negligible impact to the climate, and has the least ROI or any of the major contributors to carbon emissions. Electricity consumption is by far the biggest contributor, and is by far the easiest to solve. If we were to solve those problems, there’d be no need to even worry about aviation at all. This idea that all carbon emissions are terrible and must be eliminated is entirely counter productive, and entirely impossible.
        7y ago

adrianN 7y ago

Bali's largest city is at 4m elevation. The oceans are rising and the coral reefs around the island are dying. Bali has no economic future if we don't stop global warming.

AmericanChopper 7y ago
Where’s the model that predicts a 4m sea level rise? Even the most outlandish predictions don’t come close to that. But in any case, that’s largely irrelevant to my point. This argument presupposes that the only way to prevent catastrophic man-made climate change is to put an end to air travel. That’s such an outrageous thing to claim that you can’t simply act like it’s something that’s obvious true, and that everybody should already believe.
- adrianN 7y ago
  You don't need to have the city completely under water to make it effectively uninhabitable. It's sufficient if it floods regularly during storms. Global sea levels are expected to rise 0.5-1m at just 2° of warming. We're on an emissions trajectory that will cause much more severe warming. We don't have to completely stop global air travel, but we have to make it significantly more expensive. The price to suck all the carbon out of the atmosphere again is not trivial. Long distance tourism will suffer from this.
  - AmericanChopper 7y ago
    Denpasar does flood regularly during storms. It always has. But that aside, all aviation accounts for about 2% of global emissions, with tourism only being a portions of that. What is your basis for claiming that the only way to avoid catastrophic man-made climate change is to significantly reduce air travel? There are so many more ways to reduce emissions, with much higher ROIs, and much less economic impact. Electricity generation and land transport are so much easier to make renewable. The idea that the future of the world depends on reducing air travel is simply laughable.
    - 7y ago