5 ms·

The aviation sector currently accounts for about 2% of global emissions. Is the ability to travel, including all the business, leisure, and cultural exchange b

by dannyw 7y ago

The aviation sector currently accounts for about 2% of global emissions. Is the ability to travel, including all the business, leisure, and cultural exchange benefits worth less than 2% of our carbon footprint?

scarejunba 7y ago
We will know when we finally enable the carbon tax on everything. Just set a total cap per unit area and then set the tax per tonne so total emissions are near that. Then we'll see if it's actually worth more than 2% since we'll be paying.
sixo 7y ago
Is 20% of that worth 80% of the benefit? When costs are not priced in the benefits are weighed against nothing.
fiblye 7y ago
Everything is just a few percent here and there, and everybody shifts the blame saying we should be cutting XYZ instead of ABC. Efforts should be made to reduce all sources of emissions.
- jariel 7y ago
  "Everything is just a few percent here and there, and everybody shifts the blame saying we should be cutting XYZ instead of ABC.." Wow - no, totally not. The value derived from some kinds of emissions and resulting costs for changing them is infinitely differentiable from others. For example, changing our electricity grid over to a more renewable resource, piece by piece, will maybe be a little bit more expensive, but it won't be disruptive. 'Stopping all flights' because airplanes emit CO2 could be devastating to the world economy, in addition to a massive reduction in the quality of life of people everywhere. The factory that produces medical drugs needs some kind of Co2 emissions - probably worth it. The one producing plastic bouncy balls for pets - probably not. 'The Market' has a lot of asymmetries, but it also contains a lot of intelligence, which is why it's always reasonable to be skeptical of arbitrary, system-wide controls. Using this crisis for a 'massive experiment in what to turn online next as the basis for CO2' is excessively totalitarian, because we wouldn't really know why, how, what we are doing, and the resulting social pain would be great. If there were a rational, clean path forward and 'good timing' for the introduction of specific measures, then yes, use the opportunity. But I don't see any of that.
  - tonyedgecombe 7y ago
    massive reduction in the quality of life of people everywhere General messaures of wellbeing and life satisfaction in the West haven't shifted over the last forty years despite a massive increase in air travel.
    - lbeltrame 7y ago
      The point GP was trying to make, if I understood it correctly, is that large policy changes have social costs you need to factor in even if you're going to do them anyway. If a government doesn't keep that in mind it may bite them back somehow (see the beginning - as opposed to the follow-up - of the "gilets jaunes" movement in France).
      - jariel 7y ago
        " is that large policy changes have social costs " The 'large policy changes' will have completely varying consequences across the economic spectrum, for good and bad, which is the general problem with centralized planning. So if the government 'shut down all co2 emitting factories' it might have small consequences here, and terrible consequences over there. But if the government institutes a 'carbon tax' that makes your 'pet toys' and 'medicine' 10% more expensive, then given the inelasticity in demand and surpluses derived from medicine, people will continue to buy it at the same rate, and possibly buy fewer 'pet toys'. If travel rose by 20%, then maybe we'd see less leisure, fewer business trips, but the 'important trips' would still happen.
    - jariel 7y ago
      Those measures are fuzzy at best but besides the point. That we are 'happier because we can travel, but sadder because we have Facebook' is another can of worms entirely. But this 'no improvement in wellbeing' argument is mostly undermined by the fact that given the choice, almost 0 people chose to 'live like 50 years ago'. Everyone today can do that easily. They can go back to not having dishwashers, not wearing seatbelts, smoking a pack a day, black and white TV if they want to, but for some reason, they mostly chose modern convenience. But the real issue is the fact that economic activity is diverse, and heavy-handed centralized attempts to intervene will have crazy consequences. If there are 'obvious' ways to use a crises for 'obvious good' then sure, but I don't see any such thing.
gambiting 7y ago
There has to be a middle ground though, and it's ridiculous that the environmental impact of flying isn't factored into the price. Let's say a £30 Ryanair flight can produce as much as half a tonne of CO2 per traveller - how is that ok?
hannob 7y ago
As we all know the best way to do something about climate change is to mentally divide the economy into 50 small pieces and then declare each of them is so small that it's not worth doing anything about it.
adrianN 7y ago
The aviation sector only accounts for a small amount of global emissions because globally almost nobody can afford to fly. For people who can afford to fly, an international flight can easily double their carbon footprint for the year.
tonyedgecombe 7y ago
For the people who fly it's a much bigger portion of their impact as even in the US more than half of people don't fly in any one year. When you consider that it makes it much harder to convince the average person to lower their emissions when they can see their boss jetting off to Bali on a whim. Also that 2% figure is wrong in so many ways.
mrpopo 7y ago
Air transportation is a major contributor to CO2, if you limit the scope to the people who use it. It is estimated that about 80% of the world's adults have never taken a flight, and 94% of the world's adults have not taken a flight in over a year. So, the real picture is that this 2.5% of global CO2 emissions are caused by as few as 6% of the population, who also are incidentally the richest and bear a high personal carbon footprint in other domains than transportation. Also please remember that the aviation sector is growing, and therefore its global contribution to GHG emissions will grow as well in the future. Discounting the carbon footprint of the aviation sector based on today's numbers is a mistake. If you do not want to impede on your ability to travel, you shouldn't object to it for the 94% of the population that want the same thing as you, and when it becomes available to them the aviation sector's emissions will increase 15-fold.

by dannyw 7y ago

scarejunba 7y ago

We will know when we finally enable the carbon tax on everything. Just set a total cap per unit area and then set the tax per tonne so total emissions are near that. Then we'll see if it's actually worth more than 2% since we'll be paying.

sixo 7y ago

Is 20% of that worth 80% of the benefit? When costs are not priced in the benefits are weighed against nothing.

fiblye 7y ago

Everything is just a few percent here and there, and everybody shifts the blame saying we should be cutting XYZ instead of ABC. Efforts should be made to reduce all sources of emissions.

jariel 7y ago
"Everything is just a few percent here and there, and everybody shifts the blame saying we should be cutting XYZ instead of ABC.." Wow - no, totally not. The value derived from some kinds of emissions and resulting costs for changing them is infinitely differentiable from others. For example, changing our electricity grid over to a more renewable resource, piece by piece, will maybe be a little bit more expensive, but it won't be disruptive. 'Stopping all flights' because airplanes emit CO2 could be devastating to the world economy, in addition to a massive reduction in the quality of life of people everywhere. The factory that produces medical drugs needs some kind of Co2 emissions - probably worth it. The one producing plastic bouncy balls for pets - probably not. 'The Market' has a lot of asymmetries, but it also contains a lot of intelligence, which is why it's always reasonable to be skeptical of arbitrary, system-wide controls. Using this crisis for a 'massive experiment in what to turn online next as the basis for CO2' is excessively totalitarian, because we wouldn't really know why, how, what we are doing, and the resulting social pain would be great. If there were a rational, clean path forward and 'good timing' for the introduction of specific measures, then yes, use the opportunity. But I don't see any of that.
- tonyedgecombe 7y ago
  massive reduction in the quality of life of people everywhere General messaures of wellbeing and life satisfaction in the West haven't shifted over the last forty years despite a massive increase in air travel.
  - lbeltrame 7y ago
    The point GP was trying to make, if I understood it correctly, is that large policy changes have social costs you need to factor in even if you're going to do them anyway. If a government doesn't keep that in mind it may bite them back somehow (see the beginning - as opposed to the follow-up - of the "gilets jaunes" movement in France).
    - jariel 7y ago
      " is that large policy changes have social costs " The 'large policy changes' will have completely varying consequences across the economic spectrum, for good and bad, which is the general problem with centralized planning. So if the government 'shut down all co2 emitting factories' it might have small consequences here, and terrible consequences over there. But if the government institutes a 'carbon tax' that makes your 'pet toys' and 'medicine' 10% more expensive, then given the inelasticity in demand and surpluses derived from medicine, people will continue to buy it at the same rate, and possibly buy fewer 'pet toys'. If travel rose by 20%, then maybe we'd see less leisure, fewer business trips, but the 'important trips' would still happen.
  - jariel 7y ago
    Those measures are fuzzy at best but besides the point. That we are 'happier because we can travel, but sadder because we have Facebook' is another can of worms entirely. But this 'no improvement in wellbeing' argument is mostly undermined by the fact that given the choice, almost 0 people chose to 'live like 50 years ago'. Everyone today can do that easily. They can go back to not having dishwashers, not wearing seatbelts, smoking a pack a day, black and white TV if they want to, but for some reason, they mostly chose modern convenience. But the real issue is the fact that economic activity is diverse, and heavy-handed centralized attempts to intervene will have crazy consequences. If there are 'obvious' ways to use a crises for 'obvious good' then sure, but I don't see any such thing.

gambiting 7y ago

There has to be a middle ground though, and it's ridiculous that the environmental impact of flying isn't factored into the price. Let's say a £30 Ryanair flight can produce as much as half a tonne of CO2 per traveller - how is that ok?

hannob 7y ago

As we all know the best way to do something about climate change is to mentally divide the economy into 50 small pieces and then declare each of them is so small that it's not worth doing anything about it.

adrianN 7y ago

The aviation sector only accounts for a small amount of global emissions because globally almost nobody can afford to fly. For people who can afford to fly, an international flight can easily double their carbon footprint for the year.

tonyedgecombe 7y ago

For the people who fly it's a much bigger portion of their impact as even in the US more than half of people don't fly in any one year. When you consider that it makes it much harder to convince the average person to lower their emissions when they can see their boss jetting off to Bali on a whim. Also that 2% figure is wrong in so many ways.

mrpopo 7y ago

Air transportation is a major contributor to CO2, if you limit the scope to the people who use it. It is estimated that about 80% of the world's adults have never taken a flight, and 94% of the world's adults have not taken a flight in over a year. So, the real picture is that this 2.5% of global CO2 emissions are caused by as few as 6% of the population, who also are incidentally the richest and bear a high personal carbon footprint in other domains than transportation. Also please remember that the aviation sector is growing, and therefore its global contribution to GHG emissions will grow as well in the future. Discounting the carbon footprint of the aviation sector based on today's numbers is a mistake. If you do not want to impede on your ability to travel, you shouldn't object to it for the 94% of the population that want the same thing as you, and when it becomes available to them the aviation sector's emissions will increase 15-fold.