10 ms·

> The core problem I feel is people are straining for ingenious tech and taxation solutions that allow them to keep their exact same current lifestyle instead o

by darawk 7y ago

> The core problem I feel is people are straining for ingenious tech and taxation solutions that allow them to keep their exact same current lifestyle instead of looking for solutions that require lifestyle changes. That is actually what taxation-based solutions do. They make travel cost more, so fewer people do it.

onion2k 7y ago
That is actually what taxation-based solutions do. They make travel cost more, so fewer people do it. People aren't happy about it though, so promising to remove the taxes is a way to win votes at the next election. The incentive becomes a voter bargaining chip rather than an practical long term solution. We need a solution that actually stops a majority of people wanting to fly so much, then removing the taxation isn't a way to win votes, and consequently it remains in place as disincentive to those who do want to fly.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  Rather than chasing a goal of changing what luxury everyone wants, I’d favor chasing technical solutions like carbon neutral fuel. Take renewable energy and synthesize (non-fossil) jet fuel from atmospheric CO2, then burn that in conventional jets. We have all the key tech elements now except for scale. Tomorrow’s emissions (of CO2 anyway) are offset by today’s sequestering. If you tax CO2 emission (and credit sequestering), this might be financially competitive. (Obviously, if you tax it enough, it would be.) I see scaling up existing tech as far more possible/plausible than changing everyone’s desires.
  - onion2k 7y ago
    Tomorrow’s emissions (of CO2 anyway) are offset by today’s sequestering. Sequestering is useful but it tends to assume it doesn't matter where the CO2 is released so long as it's captured. There could be a big difference in the impact between CO2 released at ground level and CO2 released at 40,000 feet from a 747. NASA launched a satellite in 2014 to examine this exact issue - https://ocov2.jpl.nasa.gov/ https://ocov2.jpl.nasa.gov/
    - sokoloff 7y ago
      Agreed that they could be different. Whether they are or aren't, I think it's a huge win to re-emit today's carbon tomorrow than 80 million year old carbon tomorrow, regardless of where it's emitted.
- amelius 7y ago
  > We need a solution that actually stops a majority of people wanting to fly so much Perhaps we could remove all comfort from airplanes and airports. Aluminum seats. No windows. No flight attendants. And a poster on the back of every seat saying "flying hurts the planet" (similar to the graphic warning labels on cigarettes in many countries).
  - noobermin 7y ago
    Or we can offer a nicer alternative to flying, for example, actual trains like every other country.
    - ekianjo 7y ago
      Trains are not practical for long distances and lines cost a huge amount of money to build thru existing land.
      - noobermin 7y ago
        Then people will fly, or drive, and continue to contribute to GHG's. You either think this is a species ending emergency or you don't. Throughout Europe, you don't need to fly. It's not impossible by any stretch of the imagination.
        ekianjo 7y ago
        Something that will happen progressively is not the definition of an emergency.
    - grimjack00 7y ago
      Please tell me where I can get a train from the US to Europe.
      - noobermin 7y ago
        You're not wrong. The point is to reduce flying, specifically for travel within the continent. There will be cases where people will still travel by airplane. A major reduction of use of any resource doesn't mean it need to go directly to zero.
- rjsw 7y ago
  > We need a solution that actually stops a majority of people wanting to fly so much The TSA seems to work quite well at doing that.
- darawk 7y ago
  > People aren't happy about it though, so promising to remove the taxes is a way to win votes at the next election. The incentive becomes a voter bargaining chip rather than an practical long term solution. Maybe, but that hasn't really been how most other taxes have worked. Cigarettes for instance are heavily taxed, but you don't see a lot of people running on reducing those taxes. > We need a solution that actually stops a majority of people wanting to fly so much, then removing the taxation isn't a way to win votes, and consequently it remains in place as disincentive to those who do want to fly. It seems to me that raising the price of travel will stop people wanting to fly so much. I think the problem with flight right now is it got just cheap enough that the upper-middle class can afford to do it quite frequently. And once that happens, it starts to permeate the culture in the way that you are now seeing. If you double the cost, it will start to fade back out again. Additionally, while leisure travel might be the most visible to a lot of people, there is a tremendous amount of business travel, and that probably makes up the majority of all air traffic. If I had to guess, i'd say 80% of that business travel is unnecessary. For instance, I work at a financial firm, and that firm employs analysts who study companies. Periodically these analysts fly out to go to "investor days" and do things like meet with company management. The marginal utility of them being physically in the same space as these people is probably quite close to zero. If the cost of flights were substantially increased, my guess is that they would stop this practice entirely, or curtail it quite a bit.
  - throwaway287391 7y ago
    > Maybe, but that hasn't really been how most other taxes have worked. Cigarettes for instance are heavily taxed, but you don't see a lot of people running on reducing those taxes. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, <25% of Americans smoke cigarettes, while >75% of them have taken a flight at some point in their lives. If 75% smoked, I guarantee people would be running on eliminating cigarette taxes. I'm personally in favor of carbon taxes on flights but I'd imagine "under my administration, flying would be affordable for the middle class again" could be a pretty effective message.
    - darawk 7y ago
      A much higher percentage of the population used to smoke cigarettes, before the taxes were levied: https://i2.wp.com/www.prb.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/usteensmoking.gif?w=570&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C333px&ssl=1 https://i2.wp.com/www.prb.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/ust...
frobozz 7y ago
> That is actually what taxation-based solutions do. They make travel cost more, so fewer people do it. Which is fine, but it punishes us for travelling rather than encouraging us not to. Those with significant disposable income who might go on three or more leisure flights per year (e.g. one ski trip, one beach holiday, one city break) may not notice until it gets really expensive. They can often downgrade their hotel/restaurant/activity choices to compensate. It also has the potential to just move the problem until the overall price balances out: Those who are budgeting for a week in the Balearics may choose cheaper areas like Dalaman or Burgas to offset the extra cost elsewhere. The other thing is that it pushes up the income level at which one is too poor to travel. This is good in that because it means fewer people do it, there are fewer passenger miles undertaken overall. However, it's a similar issue to arguments of an unfair eco burden being placed on developing countries - Those of us who have already benefitted from poisoning the world are now telling others that they have to rein in their emissions. If the richer people I mention above have to drop one of their annual foreign holidays due to the expense are still going on two more return trips than the ones who have to drop their only holiday. All of this is a long winded way of saying that certain kinds of taxation solution can allow certain people to maintain their current lifestyle, by pricing others out of it.
- darawk 7y ago
  > Which is fine, but it punishes us for travelling rather than encouraging us not to. Why do you think this distinction is important, though? They seem like two sides of the same coin to me. > Those with significant disposable income who might go on three or more leisure flights per year (e.g. one ski trip, one beach holiday, one city break) may not notice until it gets really expensive. They can often downgrade their hotel/restaurant/activity choices to compensate. Sure that's true. But as you ratchet up the tax, fewer and fewer people can afford it. And if you set the tax at its efficient point, you can use the revenue it generates to offset the carbon the planes emit. > However, it's a similar issue to arguments of an unfair eco burden being placed on developing countries - Those of us who have already benefitted from poisoning the world are now telling others that they have to rein in their emissions. If the richer people I mention above have to drop one of their annual foreign holidays due to the expense are still going on two more return trips than the ones who have to drop their only holiday. This is a valid criticism for things like industrial development. I don't think it applies as much to leisure activities like jet travel, though I can see an argument for it there too. However, you can structure the tax in a progressive way. Wealthier countries pay more, and subsidize poorer countries. So they each get to use comparable amounts of jet travel, but the richer countries pay much more than the poorer countries. > All of this is a long winded way of saying that certain kinds of taxation solution can allow certain people to maintain their current lifestyle, by pricing others out of it. Yes, that's exactly right though. At the end of the day, you either have to ban jet travel entirely, or treat it as a scarce resource. If you're not going to completely ban it, then you have to decide who gets to use it. The way we do that is with all our scarce resources is money.

by darawk 7y ago

onion2k 7y ago

That is actually what taxation-based solutions do. They make travel cost more, so fewer people do it. People aren't happy about it though, so promising to remove the taxes is a way to win votes at the next election. The incentive becomes a voter bargaining chip rather than an practical long term solution. We need a solution that actually stops a majority of people wanting to fly so much, then removing the taxation isn't a way to win votes, and consequently it remains in place as disincentive to those who do want to fly.

sokoloff 7y ago
Rather than chasing a goal of changing what luxury everyone wants, I’d favor chasing technical solutions like carbon neutral fuel. Take renewable energy and synthesize (non-fossil) jet fuel from atmospheric CO2, then burn that in conventional jets. We have all the key tech elements now except for scale. Tomorrow’s emissions (of CO2 anyway) are offset by today’s sequestering. If you tax CO2 emission (and credit sequestering), this might be financially competitive. (Obviously, if you tax it enough, it would be.) I see scaling up existing tech as far more possible/plausible than changing everyone’s desires.
- onion2k 7y ago
  Tomorrow’s emissions (of CO2 anyway) are offset by today’s sequestering. Sequestering is useful but it tends to assume it doesn't matter where the CO2 is released so long as it's captured. There could be a big difference in the impact between CO2 released at ground level and CO2 released at 40,000 feet from a 747. NASA launched a satellite in 2014 to examine this exact issue - https://ocov2.jpl.nasa.gov/ https://ocov2.jpl.nasa.gov/
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    Agreed that they could be different. Whether they are or aren't, I think it's a huge win to re-emit today's carbon tomorrow than 80 million year old carbon tomorrow, regardless of where it's emitted.
amelius 7y ago
> We need a solution that actually stops a majority of people wanting to fly so much Perhaps we could remove all comfort from airplanes and airports. Aluminum seats. No windows. No flight attendants. And a poster on the back of every seat saying "flying hurts the planet" (similar to the graphic warning labels on cigarettes in many countries).
- noobermin 7y ago
  Or we can offer a nicer alternative to flying, for example, actual trains like every other country.
  - ekianjo 7y ago
    Trains are not practical for long distances and lines cost a huge amount of money to build thru existing land.
    - noobermin 7y ago
      Then people will fly, or drive, and continue to contribute to GHG's. You either think this is a species ending emergency or you don't. Throughout Europe, you don't need to fly. It's not impossible by any stretch of the imagination.
      - ekianjo 7y ago
        Something that will happen progressively is not the definition of an emergency.
  - grimjack00 7y ago
    Please tell me where I can get a train from the US to Europe.
    - noobermin 7y ago
      You're not wrong. The point is to reduce flying, specifically for travel within the continent. There will be cases where people will still travel by airplane. A major reduction of use of any resource doesn't mean it need to go directly to zero.
rjsw 7y ago
> We need a solution that actually stops a majority of people wanting to fly so much The TSA seems to work quite well at doing that.
darawk 7y ago
> People aren't happy about it though, so promising to remove the taxes is a way to win votes at the next election. The incentive becomes a voter bargaining chip rather than an practical long term solution. Maybe, but that hasn't really been how most other taxes have worked. Cigarettes for instance are heavily taxed, but you don't see a lot of people running on reducing those taxes. > We need a solution that actually stops a majority of people wanting to fly so much, then removing the taxation isn't a way to win votes, and consequently it remains in place as disincentive to those who do want to fly. It seems to me that raising the price of travel will stop people wanting to fly so much. I think the problem with flight right now is it got just cheap enough that the upper-middle class can afford to do it quite frequently. And once that happens, it starts to permeate the culture in the way that you are now seeing. If you double the cost, it will start to fade back out again. Additionally, while leisure travel might be the most visible to a lot of people, there is a tremendous amount of business travel, and that probably makes up the majority of all air traffic. If I had to guess, i'd say 80% of that business travel is unnecessary. For instance, I work at a financial firm, and that firm employs analysts who study companies. Periodically these analysts fly out to go to "investor days" and do things like meet with company management. The marginal utility of them being physically in the same space as these people is probably quite close to zero. If the cost of flights were substantially increased, my guess is that they would stop this practice entirely, or curtail it quite a bit.
- throwaway287391 7y ago
  > Maybe, but that hasn't really been how most other taxes have worked. Cigarettes for instance are heavily taxed, but you don't see a lot of people running on reducing those taxes. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, <25% of Americans smoke cigarettes, while >75% of them have taken a flight at some point in their lives. If 75% smoked, I guarantee people would be running on eliminating cigarette taxes. I'm personally in favor of carbon taxes on flights but I'd imagine "under my administration, flying would be affordable for the middle class again" could be a pretty effective message.
  - darawk 7y ago
    A much higher percentage of the population used to smoke cigarettes, before the taxes were levied: https://i2.wp.com/www.prb.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/usteensmoking.gif?w=570&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C333px&ssl=1 https://i2.wp.com/www.prb.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/ust...

frobozz 7y ago

> That is actually what taxation-based solutions do. They make travel cost more, so fewer people do it. Which is fine, but it punishes us for travelling rather than encouraging us not to. Those with significant disposable income who might go on three or more leisure flights per year (e.g. one ski trip, one beach holiday, one city break) may not notice until it gets really expensive. They can often downgrade their hotel/restaurant/activity choices to compensate. It also has the potential to just move the problem until the overall price balances out: Those who are budgeting for a week in the Balearics may choose cheaper areas like Dalaman or Burgas to offset the extra cost elsewhere. The other thing is that it pushes up the income level at which one is too poor to travel. This is good in that because it means fewer people do it, there are fewer passenger miles undertaken overall. However, it's a similar issue to arguments of an unfair eco burden being placed on developing countries - Those of us who have already benefitted from poisoning the world are now telling others that they have to rein in their emissions. If the richer people I mention above have to drop one of their annual foreign holidays due to the expense are still going on two more return trips than the ones who have to drop their only holiday. All of this is a long winded way of saying that certain kinds of taxation solution can allow certain people to maintain their current lifestyle, by pricing others out of it.

darawk 7y ago
> Which is fine, but it punishes us for travelling rather than encouraging us not to. Why do you think this distinction is important, though? They seem like two sides of the same coin to me. > Those with significant disposable income who might go on three or more leisure flights per year (e.g. one ski trip, one beach holiday, one city break) may not notice until it gets really expensive. They can often downgrade their hotel/restaurant/activity choices to compensate. Sure that's true. But as you ratchet up the tax, fewer and fewer people can afford it. And if you set the tax at its efficient point, you can use the revenue it generates to offset the carbon the planes emit. > However, it's a similar issue to arguments of an unfair eco burden being placed on developing countries - Those of us who have already benefitted from poisoning the world are now telling others that they have to rein in their emissions. If the richer people I mention above have to drop one of their annual foreign holidays due to the expense are still going on two more return trips than the ones who have to drop their only holiday. This is a valid criticism for things like industrial development. I don't think it applies as much to leisure activities like jet travel, though I can see an argument for it there too. However, you can structure the tax in a progressive way. Wealthier countries pay more, and subsidize poorer countries. So they each get to use comparable amounts of jet travel, but the richer countries pay much more than the poorer countries. > All of this is a long winded way of saying that certain kinds of taxation solution can allow certain people to maintain their current lifestyle, by pricing others out of it. Yes, that's exactly right though. At the end of the day, you either have to ban jet travel entirely, or treat it as a scarce resource. If you're not going to completely ban it, then you have to decide who gets to use it. The way we do that is with all our scarce resources is money.