4 ms·

This is a pretty common fallacy that I read every few days on HN. Air transportation is a major contributor to CO2, if you limit the scope to the people who use

by mrpopo 7y ago

This is a pretty common fallacy that I read every few days on HN. 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.

leetcrew 7y ago
everyone has that one thing that they don't want to give up to help reduce emissions. I'll admit for me it's fast cars. for a lot of people on HN, it seems to be that they don't want to sacrifice travel or visiting that distant family member. I've seen people go so far as to argue that the holistic benefit of seeing other places is worth the cost in emissions. I suspect if emissions were priced into air travel, we would start to see a lot of businesses realizing that video can replace a lot of in-person meetings. we might also see people start to place more value in living close to the people they care about.
- vidarh 7y ago
  Really we ought to price in the genuine cost of countering whatever emissions a product or service causes. My guess is that the effect that would have on demand for different product and services would surprise us, in that I don't think we understand very well where people would cut when externalities are priced in, partly because we're bad at estimating what value people put on different things, and partly because we're bad at assessing what impact different things has when e.g. factoring in supply lines.
jupp0r 7y ago
There is much more benefit in focussing in energy production and heating. Coal makes up for 40% of carbon emissions. Nobody will care whether their electricity comes from coal or renewables. We can get rid of those 40% of emissions without imposing restrictions on people.
- leetcrew 7y ago
  we don't necessarily have to restrict anything. start by pricing in the cost of cleaning up after <activity>, and see what happens.
- mrpopo 7y ago
  > Nobody will care whether their electricity comes from coal or renewables. They will once their taxes start going up. > We can get rid of those 40% of emissions without imposing restrictions on people. Without imposing restrictions on _the people_ who are generating the most CO2 emissions per capita. How do you think this is gonna hold? Air travel should be restricted, or at the very least taxed in proportion to its emissions, because it's cheap, easy to implement, and doesn't impact the survival of millions of people, whereas increasing the price of electricity in developing countries does.
  - kyboren 7y ago
    > They will once their taxes start going up. We can use a relatively small amount public funds to make targeted investments in electric grid infrastructure and scaling PV solar and storage. That will drive costs down and coal will disappear without any need for new taxes. Heck, even if we don't make any public investments to accelerate the process, it will happen soon (< 10y). Coal is on its way out as a fuel for electric powerplants. > Air travel should be restricted, or at the very least taxed in proportion to its emissions, because it's cheap, easy to implement, and doesn't impact the survival of millions of people, whereas increasing the price of electricity in developing countries does. Soon enough, either microgrid PV solar and storage or utility-scale PV solar and storage will be cheaper than coal, even in developing countries. Microgrid PV solar and storage is especially attractive in developing countries where the electric grid is typically unreliable. I do agree that the emissions costs of air travel should be internalized to the ticket price, but the regulation needs to leave enough room to allow airlines to avoid emission taxes by using carbon-neutral fuel.

by mrpopo 7y ago

leetcrew 7y ago

everyone has that one thing that they don't want to give up to help reduce emissions. I'll admit for me it's fast cars. for a lot of people on HN, it seems to be that they don't want to sacrifice travel or visiting that distant family member. I've seen people go so far as to argue that the holistic benefit of seeing other places is worth the cost in emissions. I suspect if emissions were priced into air travel, we would start to see a lot of businesses realizing that video can replace a lot of in-person meetings. we might also see people start to place more value in living close to the people they care about.

vidarh 7y ago
Really we ought to price in the genuine cost of countering whatever emissions a product or service causes. My guess is that the effect that would have on demand for different product and services would surprise us, in that I don't think we understand very well where people would cut when externalities are priced in, partly because we're bad at estimating what value people put on different things, and partly because we're bad at assessing what impact different things has when e.g. factoring in supply lines.

jupp0r 7y ago

There is much more benefit in focussing in energy production and heating. Coal makes up for 40% of carbon emissions. Nobody will care whether their electricity comes from coal or renewables. We can get rid of those 40% of emissions without imposing restrictions on people.

leetcrew 7y ago
we don't necessarily have to restrict anything. start by pricing in the cost of cleaning up after <activity>, and see what happens.
mrpopo 7y ago
> Nobody will care whether their electricity comes from coal or renewables. They will once their taxes start going up. > We can get rid of those 40% of emissions without imposing restrictions on people. Without imposing restrictions on _the people_ who are generating the most CO2 emissions per capita. How do you think this is gonna hold? Air travel should be restricted, or at the very least taxed in proportion to its emissions, because it's cheap, easy to implement, and doesn't impact the survival of millions of people, whereas increasing the price of electricity in developing countries does.
- kyboren 7y ago
  > They will once their taxes start going up. We can use a relatively small amount public funds to make targeted investments in electric grid infrastructure and scaling PV solar and storage. That will drive costs down and coal will disappear without any need for new taxes. Heck, even if we don't make any public investments to accelerate the process, it will happen soon (< 10y). Coal is on its way out as a fuel for electric powerplants. > Air travel should be restricted, or at the very least taxed in proportion to its emissions, because it's cheap, easy to implement, and doesn't impact the survival of millions of people, whereas increasing the price of electricity in developing countries does. Soon enough, either microgrid PV solar and storage or utility-scale PV solar and storage will be cheaper than coal, even in developing countries. Microgrid PV solar and storage is especially attractive in developing countries where the electric grid is typically unreliable. I do agree that the emissions costs of air travel should be internalized to the ticket price, but the regulation needs to leave enough room to allow airlines to avoid emission taxes by using carbon-neutral fuel.