3 ms·

> The vast majority of people absolutely 100% do not care about their carbon output. They care about their wallets and quality of life. This. The abject failur

> The vast majority of people absolutely 100% do not care about their carbon output. They care about their wallets and quality of life. This. The abject failure of airlines' "pay an extra $XX on your ticket to offset the carbon emissions of your flight" showed that the vast majority of people are virtue-signalling about climate change but not prepared to make any actual changes to their lifestyle for it. I've had arguments with "green" friends about their use of cars (I haven't owned a car for >10 years - I prefer walking/cycling). They care desperately about the planet, but they care more about not losing the convenience of their personal car. I notice the emphasis has shifted recently onto regulation of polluting industries, such as oil companies. I think this is in part because of the complete failure to change people's lifestyles. It's easier to regulate 100 large companies than get 1 billion people to accept responsibility for their lifestyle. But it'll be interesting to see what happens when those companies pass the cost of that regulation onto their customers.

sokoloff 7y ago
I wonder how much of the failure to sell carbon credits is from the positioning (in x-y screen space and in t) alongside “pay extra for a seat near the front?”, “pay extra to check a bag?”, “pay extra to sit near your family?”, “pay extra for trip insurance?”, “pay extra for WiFi?” and other nibbles at the wallet while you have it out? I’m also skeptical that these sold carbon offsets actually result in any actual marginal change in the world, but I think it’s more the choice fatigue and feeling of being one more way to be nickel and dimed...
- travisporter 7y ago
  This is exactly what gives me pause when paying these credits offered by the airline. I wonder if we could charge by total weight of passengers and luggage as that directly correlates to fuel usage.
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    It correlates but the weight to fuel usage is highly non-linear. The airplane I fly goes only 2-3% faster when it’s 10% lighter (at a constant cruise power setting, meaning the through the air economy only increases by 1/5 to 1/3 the change in mass).
bambataa 7y ago
Yes, which is why the companies promote passing the buck on to consumers rather than backing effective regulation. I'm reminded of cafe chains that give you 5p off a coffee if you use a reusable cup because they just love the environment so much but then lobby against imposing the same 5p charge via taxation. This is why the emphasis has shifted. Consumers already have to consider when buying a product without investigating its entire supply chain.
DennisP 7y ago
There's an obvious public goods problem here. My personal emissions have no measurable effect on the climate. I could reduce my emissions to nothing and I won't see a difference. If everybody else pitched in, I could personally do nothing and the climate would still be saved. Either way, the outcome is the same whether I help or not, so my incentive is to do nothing. That's why your friends haven't reduced their personal emissions, but probably support policy changes that would incentivize mass changes in behavior. It's the same reason we can't rely on voluntary donations to build the roads, but people support taxes for them.
- marcus_holmes 7y ago
  I get that, but these are "green" people who demonstrate at rallies for climate change, etc. Of all the people I would expect to "be the change they want in the world", it would be these, at least according to their FB posts. I wasn't popular for pointing out the irony when at least a few of them drove to a demonstration against a new refinery. <edited for grammar>
  - triceratops 7y ago
    > I wasn't popular for pointing out the irony when at least a few of them drove to a demonstration against a new refinery. So...they should've walked or biked to protests instead? What if (as refineries often are) it was 100 miles away in a rural area with no public transportation? What about disabled people? People without enough free time to bike 100 (or maybe even 10) miles? People with children? Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Would it be better to have no rallies at all, rather than rallies that people drive to? These people spent their free time going to rallies instead of motorboating on lakes or flying on a jet to go skiing. They have skin in the game.
pnathan 7y ago
Effective change requires shifting the system. Personal choices for coffee cups, cars, etc are largely irrelevant besides wrangling your own guilt. A actual change needed for airlines is to tax airlines at the cost of emissions and pollution they produce and have produced historically. This can be analyzed down to the supply chain level - how much does it cost to build, how much pollution is produced in the process. How much wetlands have been damaged by airfields, etc.

sokoloff 7y ago

I wonder how much of the failure to sell carbon credits is from the positioning (in x-y screen space and in t) alongside “pay extra for a seat near the front?”, “pay extra to check a bag?”, “pay extra to sit near your family?”, “pay extra for trip insurance?”, “pay extra for WiFi?” and other nibbles at the wallet while you have it out? I’m also skeptical that these sold carbon offsets actually result in any actual marginal change in the world, but I think it’s more the choice fatigue and feeling of being one more way to be nickel and dimed...

travisporter 7y ago
This is exactly what gives me pause when paying these credits offered by the airline. I wonder if we could charge by total weight of passengers and luggage as that directly correlates to fuel usage.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  It correlates but the weight to fuel usage is highly non-linear. The airplane I fly goes only 2-3% faster when it’s 10% lighter (at a constant cruise power setting, meaning the through the air economy only increases by 1/5 to 1/3 the change in mass).

bambataa 7y ago

Yes, which is why the companies promote passing the buck on to consumers rather than backing effective regulation. I'm reminded of cafe chains that give you 5p off a coffee if you use a reusable cup because they just love the environment so much but then lobby against imposing the same 5p charge via taxation. This is why the emphasis has shifted. Consumers already have to consider when buying a product without investigating its entire supply chain.

DennisP 7y ago

There's an obvious public goods problem here. My personal emissions have no measurable effect on the climate. I could reduce my emissions to nothing and I won't see a difference. If everybody else pitched in, I could personally do nothing and the climate would still be saved. Either way, the outcome is the same whether I help or not, so my incentive is to do nothing. That's why your friends haven't reduced their personal emissions, but probably support policy changes that would incentivize mass changes in behavior. It's the same reason we can't rely on voluntary donations to build the roads, but people support taxes for them.

marcus_holmes 7y ago
I get that, but these are "green" people who demonstrate at rallies for climate change, etc. Of all the people I would expect to "be the change they want in the world", it would be these, at least according to their FB posts. I wasn't popular for pointing out the irony when at least a few of them drove to a demonstration against a new refinery. <edited for grammar>
- triceratops 7y ago
  > I wasn't popular for pointing out the irony when at least a few of them drove to a demonstration against a new refinery. So...they should've walked or biked to protests instead? What if (as refineries often are) it was 100 miles away in a rural area with no public transportation? What about disabled people? People without enough free time to bike 100 (or maybe even 10) miles? People with children? Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Would it be better to have no rallies at all, rather than rallies that people drive to? These people spent their free time going to rallies instead of motorboating on lakes or flying on a jet to go skiing. They have skin in the game.

pnathan 7y ago

Effective change requires shifting the system. Personal choices for coffee cups, cars, etc are largely irrelevant besides wrangling your own guilt. A actual change needed for airlines is to tax airlines at the cost of emissions and pollution they produce and have produced historically. This can be analyzed down to the supply chain level - how much does it cost to build, how much pollution is produced in the process. How much wetlands have been damaged by airfields, etc.