8 ms·

How Guilty Should You Feel About Flying?

28 points by tysone 7y ago

FeepingCreature 7y ago
Like $20/flight guilty, which you then promptly offset at Atmosfair or a similar service. https://www.atmosfair.de/en/ https://www.atmosfair.de/en/
- morsch 7y ago
  $20 is roughly Los Angeles - Las Vegas. LA - NYC: ~65 USD LA - Beijing: ~170 USD LA - Frankfurt: ~155 USD Add 20% for business class.
  - FeepingCreature 7y ago
    Huh. Intercontinental flights are pretty carbon expensive... still doesn't add that much on the price though, not even twice as much even if you go for the cheapest flight conceivable. I wish I could add carbon expenditure to flight price searches.
esotericn 7y ago
It doesn't make sense to frame the issue as a matter of guilt, and neither is it relevant to look at the relative emissions of others. The simple matter is that we have a carbon budget per person on Earth. If you're above that, you should voluntarily reduce yourself below it. If you (we) don't, more aggressive mechanisms will eventually force us all to. Fly as much as you want, but you must capture or offset the emissions. This applies equally to all direct or indirect usage of fossil fuels. Driving, heating, goods, whatever. It's basic mathematics at this point. Guilt and shame are one potential social mechanism for getting people to realise what they must do. Taxation is another. People dying out is another. Etc. I suppose in that lens it's probably the lesser of the evils. But it's very much indirect, the shame is a sort of evolved potential solution rather than anything "real".
- sorenjan 7y ago
  Emission offset is just a way for rich people to absolve their sins. If you release CO2 in the atmosphere that was previously sequestered in the ground it's out. Sure you can plant some trees, and they'll bind the carbon as they grow, but what happens when they get old and die? Bacteria and fungi release the carbon back into the air.
  - baq 7y ago
    burn and bury, i.e. put it back where it came from.
  - mc32 7y ago
    That can be said about all forests though. As long as they produce new trees that replace them, it’d be okay.
  - AJ007 7y ago
    It’s morally absurd, no one has suggested Jeffrey Epstein or Bill Cosby could donate money to sex abuse victims and then what they did would suddenly be acceptable. It’s one thing to be wealthy and claim global warming is the most serious threat to life on earth, and fly normal commercial planes with other people. It’s another to zoom around in a private jet to your personal vacation spot and board someone’s private yacht for a week. If you really wanted to be terrible, you could be like Sir Richard Branson and launch a cruise line.
  - adriand 7y ago
    That doesn’t sound like a well-informed opinion to me. Have you looked at rigorously certified carbon offset and capture programs? It is not just treeplanting.
    - sorenjan 7y ago
      I would be very interested in any programs that actually capture and sequester CO2 long term. Do you have any good links?
SapporoChris 7y ago
Not guilty at all. I travel internationally. There really isn't a better option for traveling over the pacific. Yes, I recognize I could stay in one place, I don't consider that a viable option. I think it's a boondoggle to attempt to shame people into changing their behavior when they do not have viable options.
- steve1977 7y ago
  What are you doing on your travels that prevents not traveling from being a viable option?
  - SapporoChris 7y ago
    Attempting to immigrate out of USA. Please, list my non-traveling options, I'm interested in your perspective.
- sorenjan 7y ago
  Does the fact that there are no other options for trans pacific travel change how much CO2 you're releasing into the atmosphere because you don't want to change your habits? The planet doesn't really care about options or intentions, only actions.
- mattlutze 7y ago
  "I think it's a boondoggle to attempt to shame people into changing their behavior when they do not have viable options." It's perhaps a boondoggle to represent a person's life as having only a single option that requires such things. If you want to have the sort of life that requires your flights back and forth, that's one thing -- but voluntary participation in that life is a different thing than suggesting that you're trapped by circumstance.
  - SapporoChris 7y ago
    Anyone shaming air travel should first become carbon neutral least they be labeled a hypocrite.
SuoDuanDao 7y ago
I wonder how difficult it would be to build an airplane that runs off ethanol - until we get electric airplanes it might be a decent stopgap measure for the conscientious oligarch.
- mattlutze 7y ago
  You might enjoy this discussion on the Aviation Stack Exchange site on that very topic: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/26883/could-most-commercial-jet-engines-today-run-on-ethanol-without-any-problems/26887 https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/26883/could-mos... Tl,dr: ethanol has about 60% the energy density of jet fuel (so you need more fuel / weight for same flight), the extra weight may mean you actually have a negative available cargo weight (for passengers and their stuff) depending on the airframe, and it's a solvent that might melt the systems it's in, requiring an up-to complete retrofit of the drive and fuel systems for the airplane. But maybe depending on the application, if you built an airplane from scratch to use it, there could be ways? It may be a very expensive airplane though, which could make it harder to run one to profit eventually.
  - SuoDuanDao 7y ago
    I was envisioning a net-zero emissions private plane, a pure luxury item for frequent fliers where profit wouldn't be an issue - Depending on a celebrity's public position on climate change, that kind of signalling could be worthwhile.
Nasrudith 7y ago
Flying is a stupid symbolic focus as a "luxury" if you are talking about airlines instead of your own private jet. It has better passenger mileage than cars but worse than a fully loaded bus. Yeah you should look at better alternatives for viability but otherwise can we give this dumb meme a rest and focus on real solutions?
- ryanmercer 7y ago
  >Flying is a stupid symbolic focus as a "luxury" if you are talking about airlines instead of your own private jet. It has better passenger mileage than cars but worse than a fully loaded bus. Except you generally aren't taking a car or bus across the country, or to another continent, multiple times a year because you want to check out this zoo or that beach or go attend your friends exotic destination wedding because they found cheap flights during such and such month or because you want to go to Antarctica to see the penguins. Go install a dating app, fire it up and start swiping women 20-35ish, you'll see photo after photo after photo of women with elephants or tigers or at this landmark and that landmark. This sort of travel simply would not exist without airplanes at a ton~ of CO2 per person per round trip. So comparing planes to buses or private vehicles doesn't really equate. Cheap air travel has opened up far more travel opportunities for pleasure than have ever existed before and air travel is growing year after year. I also suspect that any given passenger's fuel usage might not be as efficient as it seems given most flights are NOT one stop to the destination and routinely involve 1 or more connecting flights which sometimes require you to actually travel past your destination only to have to backtrack on another aircraft. And for the insane amount of business flights, nearly all of that could be handled via a telephone call or video chat. Take YC they make 'finalist' founders fly out to the bay area to interview in person at a ton or three of CO2 per person round trip when they could just fire up a Skype at a few hundred grams of CO2 per gigabyte.
- istjohn 7y ago
  Except you can't drive 500 miles per hour while you nap, so flying makes it much easier to rack up those miles.
rlpb 7y ago
> “Our climate just can’t tolerate widespread frequent flying,” said Dan Rutherford, who directs the council’s aviation program. It would if we could control our breeding. How guilty should you feel about having large numbers of children?
- jokoon 7y ago
  whataboutism at its finest. "let me fly, and tell poor people they can't have children, and sterilize them if necessary" I also doubt that children of poor countries generate that much emissions. Reducing birthrates is a bigger effort than reducing air traffic.
- beatgammit 7y ago
  It doesn't matter how many people exist if each is a net zero in terms of emissions. What would be better, having more children that each have a net negative impact on the planet, or having fewer? Personally, I think the whole "reduce the number of humans" solution is terrible and completely misses the mark. We don't need to reduce the number of humans, we need to increase the efficiency of each human in terms of impact on the environment. We need more innovators, not fewer, and innovators need capital, so we should be encouraging more reproduction by those with means rather than less. Personally, I think the most practical solution is to tax pollution. Wealthy nations seem to produce far more pollution per captia than developing nation's, and developing nations adopt our bad habits. Taxing pollution increases the cost of these bad habits and encourages green innovation. We saw a move toward smaller cars in 2008 when driving became more expensive relative to income, and the same thing can happen to other aspects of our lives if living green becomes less expensive than polluting. And that culture of living green (and the cost reductions associated with innovation) will propagate to developing countries, which will decrease the average political per capita. I don't think reducing the total population significantly is workable, and attempts are only going to remove the people who have the largest chance of solving the problem generally.
mscasts 7y ago
I am a swede and I am totally confused on why people in my country seems to totally have lost their minds. People only feel guilty about some things. These are the same people that buy products from "hip" companies like Apple which are famous for making products harder to repair and practically forces people to buy completely new devices even if something is wrong on the current one and that it easily could be repaired. Yet I have never heard about any shame owning an Apple product, most likely it's the reversed. My point is that people are irrational and only acts on stuff that either feel, sound or looks good. Like always when a headline starts with a question, the answer is probably going to be a resounding "no". It isn't the act of flying that makes it bad. For example, a swedish company fly with partly renewable fuel (https://www.flygbra.se/hallbarhet/boka-miljo-class/faq/ https://www.flygbra.se/hallbarhet/boka-miljo-class/faq/) and I believe any issue can be solved with technology advancement. We shouldn't limit ourselves because of climate change. We should instead improve the technology and make it better so it doesn't impact the climate in such a way it becomes unsustainable. This is the core issue I have with the crazy people in my country. They complain but offer zero alternatives except "not doing that". Just compare Greta Thunberg (which is a person with zero suggestions) to Boyan Slat that actually tried to develop technology to clean up the oceans. Greta is way more famous and have way more attention even if Boyan is far, far more admirable and actually tries to provide solutions for the future.
- rimliu 7y ago
  Apple is not the best example. First, their products are useable and updated for a long, long time. Second, they are very recyclable.
  - mscasts 7y ago
    Sure, but it was just an example to illustrate my point. They hanven't been the good at all in recycling their products until pretty recently. They still try and keep people from actually repairing their devices which are perfectly fine in many cases. So I believe it's still a valid point even if there could be better examples. And honestly, you write > updated for a long, long time Are they really tho? A few years is not a long, long time in my opinion and even if you don't buy a new one for a couple of years and it's still updated they usually make it unbearable slow so that you cannot live with it anymore and purchase a new one. It is easy to update, but nearly impossible to go back to an older version if the new version turns out to be very slow. My father still uses a dumphone and a windows phone. They both work surprisingly well for him, especially the windows phone. I am actually pretty amazed on the longevity of the Nokia Lumia. Making a phone last 2-4 years is not a long time. I believe many people could easily have the same phones for 10+ years if the phone makers were interested of making that happen. They aren't though and that is a bit of an issue. Just compare a phone to most other products and you will soon notice people update their smart phone a lot more often than most other things. Sure it's an important device but not that many people would actually need the feature upgrade every version have. Make a phone that lasts 20 years or more and I will start to believe that you are making good, long lasting products.
samvher 7y ago
I don't think this "you don't need to feel guilty if you're not a frequent flyer" narrative is useful at all. A flight uses between 2 and 6 liters of kerosine per 100 km for every passenger [1]. You travel around 800-900 km per hour on a passenger plane, which means your rate of fuel use is fairly high (let's say 30 liters per hour). Putting it in these numbers allows you to compare it to filling up your car and puts some things in perspective. Taking a flight now and then is not going to end the world. But it does provide an easy opportunity to reduce emissions. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft
- bloogsy 7y ago
  Thank you for accurately outlining the scale of the problem. I meet so many who think that only flying once or twice a year is OK, or that flying can't be that bad.
- Retric 7y ago
  The frequency argument seems reasonable as driving yourself to the same location is generally worse for the environment. What makes flying bad is the rate you can travel. You can fly 2 million miles far easier than driving an IC car that distance. Of course this assumes commercial aviation, private jets are much worse for the environment.
  - samvher 7y ago
    driving yourself to the same location is generally worse for the environment Curious what this is based on, taking road construction, car ownership, etc into the calculation? Because as for fuel consumption clearly it depends - if you're a family, taking 1 car is generally going to be more fuel efficient.
    - Retric 7y ago
      I was just assuming a single passenger thus ‘yourself’ and normal distance vs fuel. For a couple it’s likely still true as the break even point for fuel would be around 40+MPG. That’s assuming you’re not increasing congestion and thus lowering others fuel economy and flying does not make this trip much shorter or longer. A family is as you suggest likely better off driving unless they are renting an RV. But, IMO avoiding a 10-20+ hour road trip with a car full of kids is an excusable reason to be less fuel efficient. PS: At scale things tip further to flying as roads have a separate set of issues.
mattlutze 7y ago
*Industry groups oppose such measures. “U.S. airlines are committed to reducing carbon emissions even further,” said Carter Yang, a spokesman for the airline industry group, Airlines for America. “That effort would be harmed, not helped, by proposals that would siphon away into government coffers the very funds needed to continue investing in new, more fuel-efficient aircraft, sustainable alternative aviation fuels,” and other innovations, he said. The "lining government coffers" approach is tired and obvious. Fuel efficiency standards for automobiles demonstrably reduce car emissions. Fuel efficiency standards for airplanes can drive down emissions as well. The air travel industry is predicated on taking loans against society's future environmental health for profits today. If they poured their research into looking at truly low or zero emission options they could easily argue for exemptions to emissions-based taxing and clean up the competition at the same time. It should be a race to be green, not a race to protect the green they're making on existing business models. - https://www.universetoday.com/143720/nasa-has-a-new-all-electric-airplane/ https://www.universetoday.com/143720/nasa-has-a-new-all-elec... - https://www.dw.com/en/ampaire-test-flies-worlds-biggest-electric-plane/a-49098126 https://www.dw.com/en/ampaire-test-flies-worlds-biggest-elec... - https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/16/18625088/lilium-jet-test-flight-electric-aircraft-flying-car https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/16/18625088/lilium-jet-test-...
1337biz 7y ago
After all the sharing economy talk we should introduce the guilt economy. I fear this becoming a growing trend.
- linuxftw 7y ago
  That's exactly what carbon credits / offsets are.
- scottlocklin 7y ago
  The sharing economy. The hair shirt "environmental indulgences" economy. It's almost like someone wants the peasants to stay on their plantation and be happy with their cricket gruel.
codingdave 7y ago
So the better question is whether business meetings truly need to be in-person. With all the interest in remote work, and how common it is getting, perhaps the lessons we've learned about remote communications and collaboration should be shared more broadly, to help that 12% of travelers who are the frequent flyers stay home more often. Travelling to see family or explore the world makes sense. As does large, intense meeting where the face-to-face benefits are needed. But travelling for small short meetings because you don't know how to use modern communication options does not. On a side note, the discussions around reducing our carbon footprint have a disturbing trend of implying that we should only focus on our biggest problems, or the people who are the biggest problem. They tend to justify the attitude that, "That guy is worse than me, so I'm OK."
jhrmnn 7y ago
With current world population and technologies, the sustainable level of CO₂ emissions per person is 3 tons per year. In Germany, with an above-average environmentally conscious way of life, I'm doing around 5 tons a year. In December, I'm flying to Vancouver for a conference, which will produce around 2 tons roundtrip (global warming equivalent). So while I don't feel ashamed, of course I don't feel great about it, shouldn't that be obvious?
ulucs 7y ago
This is such a first world outlook on things. It's easy to guilt people when you live in Europe or North America and have easy access to everything you can need. Other people need to go to the other end of the world for education or their jobs. Why on earth should they be penalised with month-long voyages across the Atlantic?
bloogsy 7y ago
We should feel guilty. Especially for any flights that are frivolous. We should also feel guilty for our excessive meat consumption, our excessive usage of cars, and for all forms of waste. And we should continue to feel guilty until we resolve the problem. China has a population of 1.4bn people[1] and produces 10.87tn tonnes of CO2 per year[2], whereas the US has roughly 25% of the population[3] but produces 5.107tn tonnes of CO2[2]. We in the developed western world need to take drastic steps to reduce our impact, and then encourage other nations to do the same. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di... [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States
digitalsushi 7y ago
How guilty do I feel? It depends on the day you ask me. If you ask me when I am feeling like a pessimist, then I don't feel great about it. My attitude is that we're 7 billion all living under one bedsheet and guilting the people who pass gas. Eventually we will all suffocate. Living as though humanity needs palliative care is disturbing. It might be the most realistic, but I can't process it every day. If you ask me when I am feeling like an optimist, then morbidly, I feel that we have embraced driving over a cliff, but that while we are airborne, we might design wings, test them, and learn to fly before plummeting to our deaths. If you ask me when I am feeling like a cynic, then someone is going to bioengineer a population reducer, and 1% of us will inherit the earth before 2100. That would also solve the problem, but I won't get to be around to enjoy it. Here's the rub, none of these require me to do anything differently. Now tell me how I can add a fourth option that I can genuinely believe has some reasonable metric for improving our chances. I'm having such a hard time finding it, and I think that people like me, left to compound their depressed thoughts, invariably turn into the enemy on this global effort. Anyone, please?
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  > 1% of us will inherit the earth before 2100. That would also solve the problem, but I won't get to be around to enjoy it. Not necessarily. If the 1% fly around in private jets regularly we'll be worse off. > fourth option The only solution is political and global. A carbon tax & tariff is the best option I'm aware of, but there are others. https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-riding/ https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-riding/
chewz 7y ago
Guilty about flying, guilty about eating meat, guilty about having children. Are we trying to embrace some quasi-religion or are we deciding on actions for keeping the planet sustainable?
aaron695 7y ago
So we guilt people for becoming more educated and enlightened? Flying makes you a better human. It's also an experience, which is good for your well being as compared to buying 'stuff' A good gauge is on this is asking people about offsetting the carbon through the many options. They'll then just shame you again. What this is really about is jealousy. Some people don't like travel. They resent people who do. If it gets to you, pay the offset. Put into some sort of R&D for renewables.
goodcanadian 7y ago
Ideally, we should reduce flying, but in the short term, it is not something I get overly concerned about if there is not a reasonable alternative (taking the train for example). Yes, you could always choose not to make the trip, but that comes with varying levels of pain points (maybe you miss out on visiting family, for example). The reason I take this position is because there is so much low hanging fruit that doesn't require significant lifestyle changes that we should be doing those things first and NOW before we get too worked up about lifestyle changes. I drive an electric car; for most purposes it is an exact replacement for a petrol/gasoline car. In many ways it is better (cheaper fuel, cheaper maintenance, quieter, better for air quality). In some ways, it is worse (lower range between fueling, though I find that is rarely a practical issue). My point is that, financial considerations aside, most people could easily replace their car with an electric one without seriously impacting the way they live their lives. There are many things like this which would have a huge impact without forcing people to change their habits too suddenly. Once these changes are well underway, we can look at whether and what major lifestyle changes are still needed.
me_me_me 7y ago
> Each of these travelers, on average, emits more than 3 tons of carbon dioxide per year, a substantial amount, Conservative estimate puts every person at around 300-500kg CO2 emission by breathing. Just to put things into perspective. Ships produce way more emissions then flying. I really wish they stop producing those misleading articles muddling the water and focus on real polluters.
jokoon 7y ago
If americans could reduce their emissions, that would be a great start. The US emits a lot per capita compared to other countries. I'm worried that in the future, eco-terrorism might actually become a thing...
solatic 7y ago
Not guilty at all. I live east of the Atlantic. My parents live west of the Atlantic. What am I supposed to do, never see my family again west of the Atlantic? Say goodbye to the life I've built east of the Atlantic and move back west again? There are absolutely no alternatives. If it's such a big problem then force airlines to buy carbon offsets for every passenger and pass on the costs in the form of increased ticket prices. Get governments to pump more money into researching greener aeronautical alternatives. But don't try to guilt people into making morally impossible choices and pretend like you're sitting on some ethical high horse while you're doing it.
- xref 7y ago
  >There are absolutely no alternatives Our greatest scientists will surely invent another means to travel over water. Also literally the second paragraph of the article covers your use case: “should most Americans really be ashamed of getting on a plane to see grandma this holiday season? Probably not.“

28 points by tysone 7y ago

Like $20/flight guilty, which you then promptly offset at Atmosfair or a similar service. https://www.atmosfair.de/en/ https://www.atmosfair.de/en/

morsch 7y ago
$20 is roughly Los Angeles - Las Vegas. LA - NYC: ~65 USD LA - Beijing: ~170 USD LA - Frankfurt: ~155 USD Add 20% for business class.
- FeepingCreature 7y ago
  Huh. Intercontinental flights are pretty carbon expensive... still doesn't add that much on the price though, not even twice as much even if you go for the cheapest flight conceivable. I wish I could add carbon expenditure to flight price searches.

esotericn 7y ago

It doesn't make sense to frame the issue as a matter of guilt, and neither is it relevant to look at the relative emissions of others. The simple matter is that we have a carbon budget per person on Earth. If you're above that, you should voluntarily reduce yourself below it. If you (we) don't, more aggressive mechanisms will eventually force us all to. Fly as much as you want, but you must capture or offset the emissions. This applies equally to all direct or indirect usage of fossil fuels. Driving, heating, goods, whatever. It's basic mathematics at this point. Guilt and shame are one potential social mechanism for getting people to realise what they must do. Taxation is another. People dying out is another. Etc. I suppose in that lens it's probably the lesser of the evils. But it's very much indirect, the shame is a sort of evolved potential solution rather than anything "real".

sorenjan 7y ago
Emission offset is just a way for rich people to absolve their sins. If you release CO2 in the atmosphere that was previously sequestered in the ground it's out. Sure you can plant some trees, and they'll bind the carbon as they grow, but what happens when they get old and die? Bacteria and fungi release the carbon back into the air.
- baq 7y ago
  burn and bury, i.e. put it back where it came from.
- mc32 7y ago
  That can be said about all forests though. As long as they produce new trees that replace them, it’d be okay.
- AJ007 7y ago
  It’s morally absurd, no one has suggested Jeffrey Epstein or Bill Cosby could donate money to sex abuse victims and then what they did would suddenly be acceptable. It’s one thing to be wealthy and claim global warming is the most serious threat to life on earth, and fly normal commercial planes with other people. It’s another to zoom around in a private jet to your personal vacation spot and board someone’s private yacht for a week. If you really wanted to be terrible, you could be like Sir Richard Branson and launch a cruise line.
- adriand 7y ago
  That doesn’t sound like a well-informed opinion to me. Have you looked at rigorously certified carbon offset and capture programs? It is not just treeplanting.
  - sorenjan 7y ago
    I would be very interested in any programs that actually capture and sequester CO2 long term. Do you have any good links?

SapporoChris 7y ago

Not guilty at all. I travel internationally. There really isn't a better option for traveling over the pacific. Yes, I recognize I could stay in one place, I don't consider that a viable option. I think it's a boondoggle to attempt to shame people into changing their behavior when they do not have viable options.

steve1977 7y ago
What are you doing on your travels that prevents not traveling from being a viable option?
- SapporoChris 7y ago
  Attempting to immigrate out of USA. Please, list my non-traveling options, I'm interested in your perspective.
sorenjan 7y ago
Does the fact that there are no other options for trans pacific travel change how much CO2 you're releasing into the atmosphere because you don't want to change your habits? The planet doesn't really care about options or intentions, only actions.
mattlutze 7y ago
"I think it's a boondoggle to attempt to shame people into changing their behavior when they do not have viable options." It's perhaps a boondoggle to represent a person's life as having only a single option that requires such things. If you want to have the sort of life that requires your flights back and forth, that's one thing -- but voluntary participation in that life is a different thing than suggesting that you're trapped by circumstance.
- SapporoChris 7y ago
  Anyone shaming air travel should first become carbon neutral least they be labeled a hypocrite.

SuoDuanDao 7y ago

I wonder how difficult it would be to build an airplane that runs off ethanol - until we get electric airplanes it might be a decent stopgap measure for the conscientious oligarch.

mattlutze 7y ago
You might enjoy this discussion on the Aviation Stack Exchange site on that very topic: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/26883/could-most-commercial-jet-engines-today-run-on-ethanol-without-any-problems/26887 https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/26883/could-mos... Tl,dr: ethanol has about 60% the energy density of jet fuel (so you need more fuel / weight for same flight), the extra weight may mean you actually have a negative available cargo weight (for passengers and their stuff) depending on the airframe, and it's a solvent that might melt the systems it's in, requiring an up-to complete retrofit of the drive and fuel systems for the airplane. But maybe depending on the application, if you built an airplane from scratch to use it, there could be ways? It may be a very expensive airplane though, which could make it harder to run one to profit eventually.
- SuoDuanDao 7y ago
  I was envisioning a net-zero emissions private plane, a pure luxury item for frequent fliers where profit wouldn't be an issue - Depending on a celebrity's public position on climate change, that kind of signalling could be worthwhile.

Nasrudith 7y ago

Flying is a stupid symbolic focus as a "luxury" if you are talking about airlines instead of your own private jet. It has better passenger mileage than cars but worse than a fully loaded bus. Yeah you should look at better alternatives for viability but otherwise can we give this dumb meme a rest and focus on real solutions?

ryanmercer 7y ago
>Flying is a stupid symbolic focus as a "luxury" if you are talking about airlines instead of your own private jet. It has better passenger mileage than cars but worse than a fully loaded bus. Except you generally aren't taking a car or bus across the country, or to another continent, multiple times a year because you want to check out this zoo or that beach or go attend your friends exotic destination wedding because they found cheap flights during such and such month or because you want to go to Antarctica to see the penguins. Go install a dating app, fire it up and start swiping women 20-35ish, you'll see photo after photo after photo of women with elephants or tigers or at this landmark and that landmark. This sort of travel simply would not exist without airplanes at a ton~ of CO2 per person per round trip. So comparing planes to buses or private vehicles doesn't really equate. Cheap air travel has opened up far more travel opportunities for pleasure than have ever existed before and air travel is growing year after year. I also suspect that any given passenger's fuel usage might not be as efficient as it seems given most flights are NOT one stop to the destination and routinely involve 1 or more connecting flights which sometimes require you to actually travel past your destination only to have to backtrack on another aircraft. And for the insane amount of business flights, nearly all of that could be handled via a telephone call or video chat. Take YC they make 'finalist' founders fly out to the bay area to interview in person at a ton or three of CO2 per person round trip when they could just fire up a Skype at a few hundred grams of CO2 per gigabyte.
istjohn 7y ago
Except you can't drive 500 miles per hour while you nap, so flying makes it much easier to rack up those miles.

rlpb 7y ago

> “Our climate just can’t tolerate widespread frequent flying,” said Dan Rutherford, who directs the council’s aviation program. It would if we could control our breeding. How guilty should you feel about having large numbers of children?

jokoon 7y ago
whataboutism at its finest. "let me fly, and tell poor people they can't have children, and sterilize them if necessary" I also doubt that children of poor countries generate that much emissions. Reducing birthrates is a bigger effort than reducing air traffic.
beatgammit 7y ago
It doesn't matter how many people exist if each is a net zero in terms of emissions. What would be better, having more children that each have a net negative impact on the planet, or having fewer? Personally, I think the whole "reduce the number of humans" solution is terrible and completely misses the mark. We don't need to reduce the number of humans, we need to increase the efficiency of each human in terms of impact on the environment. We need more innovators, not fewer, and innovators need capital, so we should be encouraging more reproduction by those with means rather than less. Personally, I think the most practical solution is to tax pollution. Wealthy nations seem to produce far more pollution per captia than developing nation's, and developing nations adopt our bad habits. Taxing pollution increases the cost of these bad habits and encourages green innovation. We saw a move toward smaller cars in 2008 when driving became more expensive relative to income, and the same thing can happen to other aspects of our lives if living green becomes less expensive than polluting. And that culture of living green (and the cost reductions associated with innovation) will propagate to developing countries, which will decrease the average political per capita. I don't think reducing the total population significantly is workable, and attempts are only going to remove the people who have the largest chance of solving the problem generally.

mscasts 7y ago

I am a swede and I am totally confused on why people in my country seems to totally have lost their minds. People only feel guilty about some things. These are the same people that buy products from "hip" companies like Apple which are famous for making products harder to repair and practically forces people to buy completely new devices even if something is wrong on the current one and that it easily could be repaired. Yet I have never heard about any shame owning an Apple product, most likely it's the reversed. My point is that people are irrational and only acts on stuff that either feel, sound or looks good. Like always when a headline starts with a question, the answer is probably going to be a resounding "no". It isn't the act of flying that makes it bad. For example, a swedish company fly with partly renewable fuel (https://www.flygbra.se/hallbarhet/boka-miljo-class/faq/ https://www.flygbra.se/hallbarhet/boka-miljo-class/faq/) and I believe any issue can be solved with technology advancement. We shouldn't limit ourselves because of climate change. We should instead improve the technology and make it better so it doesn't impact the climate in such a way it becomes unsustainable. This is the core issue I have with the crazy people in my country. They complain but offer zero alternatives except "not doing that". Just compare Greta Thunberg (which is a person with zero suggestions) to Boyan Slat that actually tried to develop technology to clean up the oceans. Greta is way more famous and have way more attention even if Boyan is far, far more admirable and actually tries to provide solutions for the future.

rimliu 7y ago
Apple is not the best example. First, their products are useable and updated for a long, long time. Second, they are very recyclable.
- mscasts 7y ago
  Sure, but it was just an example to illustrate my point. They hanven't been the good at all in recycling their products until pretty recently. They still try and keep people from actually repairing their devices which are perfectly fine in many cases. So I believe it's still a valid point even if there could be better examples. And honestly, you write > updated for a long, long time Are they really tho? A few years is not a long, long time in my opinion and even if you don't buy a new one for a couple of years and it's still updated they usually make it unbearable slow so that you cannot live with it anymore and purchase a new one. It is easy to update, but nearly impossible to go back to an older version if the new version turns out to be very slow. My father still uses a dumphone and a windows phone. They both work surprisingly well for him, especially the windows phone. I am actually pretty amazed on the longevity of the Nokia Lumia. Making a phone last 2-4 years is not a long time. I believe many people could easily have the same phones for 10+ years if the phone makers were interested of making that happen. They aren't though and that is a bit of an issue. Just compare a phone to most other products and you will soon notice people update their smart phone a lot more often than most other things. Sure it's an important device but not that many people would actually need the feature upgrade every version have. Make a phone that lasts 20 years or more and I will start to believe that you are making good, long lasting products.

samvher 7y ago

I don't think this "you don't need to feel guilty if you're not a frequent flyer" narrative is useful at all. A flight uses between 2 and 6 liters of kerosine per 100 km for every passenger [1]. You travel around 800-900 km per hour on a passenger plane, which means your rate of fuel use is fairly high (let's say 30 liters per hour). Putting it in these numbers allows you to compare it to filling up your car and puts some things in perspective. Taking a flight now and then is not going to end the world. But it does provide an easy opportunity to reduce emissions. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft

bloogsy 7y ago
Thank you for accurately outlining the scale of the problem. I meet so many who think that only flying once or twice a year is OK, or that flying can't be that bad.
Retric 7y ago
The frequency argument seems reasonable as driving yourself to the same location is generally worse for the environment. What makes flying bad is the rate you can travel. You can fly 2 million miles far easier than driving an IC car that distance. Of course this assumes commercial aviation, private jets are much worse for the environment.
- samvher 7y ago
  driving yourself to the same location is generally worse for the environment Curious what this is based on, taking road construction, car ownership, etc into the calculation? Because as for fuel consumption clearly it depends - if you're a family, taking 1 car is generally going to be more fuel efficient.
  - Retric 7y ago
    I was just assuming a single passenger thus ‘yourself’ and normal distance vs fuel. For a couple it’s likely still true as the break even point for fuel would be around 40+MPG. That’s assuming you’re not increasing congestion and thus lowering others fuel economy and flying does not make this trip much shorter or longer. A family is as you suggest likely better off driving unless they are renting an RV. But, IMO avoiding a 10-20+ hour road trip with a car full of kids is an excusable reason to be less fuel efficient. PS: At scale things tip further to flying as roads have a separate set of issues.

mattlutze 7y ago

*Industry groups oppose such measures. “U.S. airlines are committed to reducing carbon emissions even further,” said Carter Yang, a spokesman for the airline industry group, Airlines for America. “That effort would be harmed, not helped, by proposals that would siphon away into government coffers the very funds needed to continue investing in new, more fuel-efficient aircraft, sustainable alternative aviation fuels,” and other innovations, he said. The "lining government coffers" approach is tired and obvious. Fuel efficiency standards for automobiles demonstrably reduce car emissions. Fuel efficiency standards for airplanes can drive down emissions as well. The air travel industry is predicated on taking loans against society's future environmental health for profits today. If they poured their research into looking at truly low or zero emission options they could easily argue for exemptions to emissions-based taxing and clean up the competition at the same time. It should be a race to be green, not a race to protect the green they're making on existing business models. - https://www.universetoday.com/143720/nasa-has-a-new-all-electric-airplane/ https://www.universetoday.com/143720/nasa-has-a-new-all-elec... - https://www.dw.com/en/ampaire-test-flies-worlds-biggest-electric-plane/a-49098126 https://www.dw.com/en/ampaire-test-flies-worlds-biggest-elec... - https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/16/18625088/lilium-jet-test-flight-electric-aircraft-flying-car https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/16/18625088/lilium-jet-test-...

1337biz 7y ago

After all the sharing economy talk we should introduce the guilt economy. I fear this becoming a growing trend.

linuxftw 7y ago
That's exactly what carbon credits / offsets are.
scottlocklin 7y ago
The sharing economy. The hair shirt "environmental indulgences" economy. It's almost like someone wants the peasants to stay on their plantation and be happy with their cricket gruel.

codingdave 7y ago

So the better question is whether business meetings truly need to be in-person. With all the interest in remote work, and how common it is getting, perhaps the lessons we've learned about remote communications and collaboration should be shared more broadly, to help that 12% of travelers who are the frequent flyers stay home more often. Travelling to see family or explore the world makes sense. As does large, intense meeting where the face-to-face benefits are needed. But travelling for small short meetings because you don't know how to use modern communication options does not. On a side note, the discussions around reducing our carbon footprint have a disturbing trend of implying that we should only focus on our biggest problems, or the people who are the biggest problem. They tend to justify the attitude that, "That guy is worse than me, so I'm OK."

jhrmnn 7y ago

With current world population and technologies, the sustainable level of CO₂ emissions per person is 3 tons per year. In Germany, with an above-average environmentally conscious way of life, I'm doing around 5 tons a year. In December, I'm flying to Vancouver for a conference, which will produce around 2 tons roundtrip (global warming equivalent). So while I don't feel ashamed, of course I don't feel great about it, shouldn't that be obvious?

ulucs 7y ago

This is such a first world outlook on things. It's easy to guilt people when you live in Europe or North America and have easy access to everything you can need. Other people need to go to the other end of the world for education or their jobs. Why on earth should they be penalised with month-long voyages across the Atlantic?

bloogsy 7y ago

We should feel guilty. Especially for any flights that are frivolous. We should also feel guilty for our excessive meat consumption, our excessive usage of cars, and for all forms of waste. And we should continue to feel guilty until we resolve the problem. China has a population of 1.4bn people[1] and produces 10.87tn tonnes of CO2 per year[2], whereas the US has roughly 25% of the population[3] but produces 5.107tn tonnes of CO2[2]. We in the developed western world need to take drastic steps to reduce our impact, and then encourage other nations to do the same. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di... [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

digitalsushi 7y ago

How guilty do I feel? It depends on the day you ask me. If you ask me when I am feeling like a pessimist, then I don't feel great about it. My attitude is that we're 7 billion all living under one bedsheet and guilting the people who pass gas. Eventually we will all suffocate. Living as though humanity needs palliative care is disturbing. It might be the most realistic, but I can't process it every day. If you ask me when I am feeling like an optimist, then morbidly, I feel that we have embraced driving over a cliff, but that while we are airborne, we might design wings, test them, and learn to fly before plummeting to our deaths. If you ask me when I am feeling like a cynic, then someone is going to bioengineer a population reducer, and 1% of us will inherit the earth before 2100. That would also solve the problem, but I won't get to be around to enjoy it. Here's the rub, none of these require me to do anything differently. Now tell me how I can add a fourth option that I can genuinely believe has some reasonable metric for improving our chances. I'm having such a hard time finding it, and I think that people like me, left to compound their depressed thoughts, invariably turn into the enemy on this global effort. Anyone, please?

bryanlarsen 7y ago
> 1% of us will inherit the earth before 2100. That would also solve the problem, but I won't get to be around to enjoy it. Not necessarily. If the 1% fly around in private jets regularly we'll be worse off. > fourth option The only solution is political and global. A carbon tax & tariff is the best option I'm aware of, but there are others. https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-riding/ https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-riding/

chewz 7y ago

Guilty about flying, guilty about eating meat, guilty about having children. Are we trying to embrace some quasi-religion or are we deciding on actions for keeping the planet sustainable?

aaron695 7y ago

So we guilt people for becoming more educated and enlightened? Flying makes you a better human. It's also an experience, which is good for your well being as compared to buying 'stuff' A good gauge is on this is asking people about offsetting the carbon through the many options. They'll then just shame you again. What this is really about is jealousy. Some people don't like travel. They resent people who do. If it gets to you, pay the offset. Put into some sort of R&D for renewables.

goodcanadian 7y ago

Ideally, we should reduce flying, but in the short term, it is not something I get overly concerned about if there is not a reasonable alternative (taking the train for example). Yes, you could always choose not to make the trip, but that comes with varying levels of pain points (maybe you miss out on visiting family, for example). The reason I take this position is because there is so much low hanging fruit that doesn't require significant lifestyle changes that we should be doing those things first and NOW before we get too worked up about lifestyle changes. I drive an electric car; for most purposes it is an exact replacement for a petrol/gasoline car. In many ways it is better (cheaper fuel, cheaper maintenance, quieter, better for air quality). In some ways, it is worse (lower range between fueling, though I find that is rarely a practical issue). My point is that, financial considerations aside, most people could easily replace their car with an electric one without seriously impacting the way they live their lives. There are many things like this which would have a huge impact without forcing people to change their habits too suddenly. Once these changes are well underway, we can look at whether and what major lifestyle changes are still needed.

me_me_me 7y ago

> Each of these travelers, on average, emits more than 3 tons of carbon dioxide per year, a substantial amount, Conservative estimate puts every person at around 300-500kg CO2 emission by breathing. Just to put things into perspective. Ships produce way more emissions then flying. I really wish they stop producing those misleading articles muddling the water and focus on real polluters.

jokoon 7y ago

If americans could reduce their emissions, that would be a great start. The US emits a lot per capita compared to other countries. I'm worried that in the future, eco-terrorism might actually become a thing...

solatic 7y ago

Not guilty at all. I live east of the Atlantic. My parents live west of the Atlantic. What am I supposed to do, never see my family again west of the Atlantic? Say goodbye to the life I've built east of the Atlantic and move back west again? There are absolutely no alternatives. If it's such a big problem then force airlines to buy carbon offsets for every passenger and pass on the costs in the form of increased ticket prices. Get governments to pump more money into researching greener aeronautical alternatives. But don't try to guilt people into making morally impossible choices and pretend like you're sitting on some ethical high horse while you're doing it.

xref 7y ago
>There are absolutely no alternatives Our greatest scientists will surely invent another means to travel over water. Also literally the second paragraph of the article covers your use case: “should most Americans really be ashamed of getting on a plane to see grandma this holiday season? Probably not.“