4 ms·

The real villain here is coal-powered planes! Ok, in all seriousness, the efficiency story for air travel is... complicated. So you claim planes account for 2.

by cletus 7y ago

The real villain here is coal-powered planes! Ok, in all seriousness, the efficiency story for air travel is... complicated. So you claim planes account for 2.5% of CO2 emissions but air travel and transport is still a relative luxury enjoyed by a privileged few so that's not necessary accurate. I found this [1] that shows planes to be much worse than automobiles (per passenger per km) but again, it's complicated. Personally I don't mind the investment in supersonic travel. After all, it's hard to know what fruit this will ultimately bear. Some people have asked what's the difference between crossing the Atlantic in 4 hours instead of 8? It's the difference between able to go for the day or not. [1]: https://youmatter.world/en/plane-or-cars-which-means-of-transport-pollutes-the-most/ https://youmatter.world/en/plane-or-cars-which-means-of-tran...

perl4ever 7y ago
"It's the difference between able to go for the day or not" Which points to how increases in capability and efficiency can stimulate demand, which could be a bad thing from an environmental perspective.
- melling 7y ago
  And in the meantime, enough emissions from fossil fuels to generate electricity is emitted every year to cover a couple decades of flying.
  - mrpopo 7y ago
    This comment makes no sense because it doesn't state how many people get electricity and how many people fly. The carbon footprint of one transatlantic flight is on the same order of magnitude as one person's yearly electricity consumption. People who fly every year can substantially reduce their carbon footprint by not flying, people who already don't fly every year (the majority of the population) can't.
    - choeger 7y ago
      The climate does not care how many people caused the co2 emissions.
      - usrusr 7y ago
        People care. And even if you somehow think they should not you are in no position to decide what they care about.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - mrpopo 7y ago
        The climate system itself doesn't, but the total carbon budget has to be allocated to and split between 7 billion people one way or another. What is a fair split? Of course, if you want to keep flying at 800 km/h around the globe AND get power for your home's computers and 4k TV, you will have to advocate for cutting electricity AND blocking air transport of some other people until their coal plants are powered with solar panels. It's your right to decide so, but you have to admit it that it's unethical.
        growlist 7y ago
        > fair split And what about the billions extra that the developing world is predicted to add to global population?
        mrpopo 7y ago
        This is a reasonable question to ask, although it's also a terribly wrong assumption. First the ship has already sailed for most of Asia, where the fertility rate is already below 2 or near 2, and the billions extra are just from people getting older. China's population for instance is already expected to decrease from 2030-2035. Asking from these countries to reduce their population is equivalent to asking them to reduce their life expectancy. In central Africa, the fertility rate is still very high, indeed. But now, remember we are talking about splitting carbon emissions? They already don't emit any carbon. Reducing the fertility rate would still be a good idea, for other reasons (they will be the most impacted by climate change-related disasters for instance).

by cletus 7y ago

perl4ever 7y ago

"It's the difference between able to go for the day or not" Which points to how increases in capability and efficiency can stimulate demand, which could be a bad thing from an environmental perspective.

melling 7y ago
And in the meantime, enough emissions from fossil fuels to generate electricity is emitted every year to cover a couple decades of flying.
- mrpopo 7y ago
  This comment makes no sense because it doesn't state how many people get electricity and how many people fly. The carbon footprint of one transatlantic flight is on the same order of magnitude as one person's yearly electricity consumption. People who fly every year can substantially reduce their carbon footprint by not flying, people who already don't fly every year (the majority of the population) can't.
  - choeger 7y ago
    The climate does not care how many people caused the co2 emissions.
    - usrusr 7y ago
      People care. And even if you somehow think they should not you are in no position to decide what they care about.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - mrpopo 7y ago
      The climate system itself doesn't, but the total carbon budget has to be allocated to and split between 7 billion people one way or another. What is a fair split? Of course, if you want to keep flying at 800 km/h around the globe AND get power for your home's computers and 4k TV, you will have to advocate for cutting electricity AND blocking air transport of some other people until their coal plants are powered with solar panels. It's your right to decide so, but you have to admit it that it's unethical.
      - growlist 7y ago
        > fair split And what about the billions extra that the developing world is predicted to add to global population?
        mrpopo 7y ago
        This is a reasonable question to ask, although it's also a terribly wrong assumption. First the ship has already sailed for most of Asia, where the fertility rate is already below 2 or near 2, and the billions extra are just from people getting older. China's population for instance is already expected to decrease from 2030-2035. Asking from these countries to reduce their population is equivalent to asking them to reduce their life expectancy. In central Africa, the fertility rate is still very high, indeed. But now, remember we are talking about splitting carbon emissions? They already don't emit any carbon. Reducing the fertility rate would still be a good idea, for other reasons (they will be the most impacted by climate change-related disasters for instance).