5 ms·

Me too. This is the reason I absolutely don't want to see airlines or airframe manufacturers bailed out. That industry needs to shrink. If that means fewer fl

by spking 7y ago

Me too. This is the reason I absolutely don't want to see airlines or airframe manufacturers bailed out. That industry needs to shrink. If that means fewer flights available and higher prices in the future, that's a net positive for the planet as people will have to be more selective about travel. https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/climate_law_institute/transportation_and_global_warming/airplane_emissions/ https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/climate_law_ins...

option 7y ago
MAD, globalization and ease of travel is why WW3 is not happening. Be careful what you wish for. Scaling back civilization is not the solution. Technological progress and smart regulations are.
- caoilte 7y ago
  Those are pretty bold claims to make without sources. Maybe less air travel would be more civilized.
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  I agree about globalization, but Climate Change is just as likely to cause the type of instability that could lead to a WW3. It will certainly lead to massive suffering regardless. Until we have carbon-free or at least greatly-carbon-reduced air travel, we need to cut back on it.
- enchiridion 7y ago
  I'm pretty sure MAD is enough.
- staticautomatic 7y ago
  I had no idea Thomas Friedman was a HN member!
- devmunchies 7y ago
  > Scaling back civilization is not the solution. Technological progress and smart regulations are. Scaling back tech is definitely a solution. Especially a modern spin on "older" tech (e.g. bullet trains, passive solar heating). You speak so matter-of-factly yet there's no evidence that more "progress" is the solution, when there is no way to be sure (its a gamble), whereas its a fact that scaling back our reliance on more tech is a known solution.
- evanlivingston 7y ago
  Citation(s) needed.
s5300 7y ago
"If that means fewer flights available and higher prices in the future, that's a net positive for the planet as people will have to be more selective about travel." I've lurked near daily on HN for over five years - and this is the unfortunate comment I finally feel the need to make an account to reply to. I presume you're living in the U.S. based on your comment. I too live in the U.S., with severely debilitating health issues. I've been chronically ill for over half of my life now, and only just recently could I legally consume alcohol. I'm in the MidWest, and have to somewhat regularly fly to California and Massachusetts for medical treatment. I have no parents, and haven't throughout the duration of my illness. I receive no government assistance financially, because our medical system is shit on recognition of many musculoskeletal illnesses. My insurance is also shit in general, because medical care availability is shit in the U.S. Anyways, I'm practically only alive/still somewhat sentient because of availability of cheaper airline tickets to get to my care. Don't advocate for making accessibility even more expensive unless you're going to also make sure that people like me (which there's a surprising fuckload of) don't have to rely on it. Check your privilege, or something like that. Or maybe I should, and just let my body die ^__^
- kaybe 7y ago
  The problem is not availability of cheap airline tickets, it's availability of healthcare. The point (the transportation/energy use issue cannot be tackled without also working on the social problems) is an important one though.
  - pathseeker 7y ago
    > The problem is not availability of cheap airline tickets, it's availability of healthcare. If we're talking about a rare disease, there is no solution other than moving to one of the few specialist centers in the world if air travel goes away.
    - munk-a 7y ago
      That's reasonable though - my step-son has a serious kidney issue and being close to the reneal specialists in my area has always been a consideration for where to live. Living with a rough disease is tough and my heart goes out to everyone that has to struggle in their daily lives but, it'll always be easier to relocate closer to the facility unless the trips are extremely infrequent and other factors are more important (like family, work etc...) In Canada this is less bad since being forced to move away from work for medical care doesn't prevent you from affording that care - in the US this can result in an impossible choice but :shrug: the US is broken and unable to afford a good standard of living for their citizens.
ummonk 7y ago
According to your link, they constitute only 3% of US emissions.
munk-a 7y ago
I think that this Pandemic might be just enough to shake up sales culture. For quite a while we've semi-illogically held on to in person sales being a premium experience - instead of salesmen being able to dial in and demo something remotely they'll be flown around from office to office to show it off in person. They do this because it works, because western culture values that "personal touch" and it actually pays for the price of flying these folks around. I am hoping that we can at least ditch the majority of business related flights when we come through this crisis as that alone would really dampen air flight volume.
pathseeker 7y ago
Just advocate for a carbon tax and be done with it. Don't arbitrarily decide which industries get to stay and which ones have to go. You ban air travel and suddenly people cover a big chunk of the difference with mass driving, causing significantly more deaths and increased CO2. (Remember: Southwest's most popular route is Dallas<->Houston which is drive-able)
- jrockway 7y ago
  A train between Houston and Dallas would be practical: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Central_Railway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Central_Railway I think the biggest blocker on high speed rail is being able to get places once you arrive, without a car. The Northeast Corridor works because you can get anywhere in New York, Boston, and DC with public transportation once you arrive. A lot of cities with intercity train service don't really have that option, so you end up driving to the train station, taking the train, and renting a car at your destination. At that point, you might as well fly because the steps are the same, but it's faster. Sure, you can tax carbon, especially passenger automobiles... but you will cause a much larger recession than Coronavirus as people suddenly can't afford to go to work anymore. The country was built on cheap driving. It has a disastrous climate impact, but it's too established to just will out of existence. It is a tough situation, which is why nothing is being done. (We can't even get our train tunnel between New York and New Jersey repaired, and that brings 200,000 people to and from work everyday.)
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
    > Sure, you can tax carbon, especially passenger automobiles... but you will cause a much larger recession than Coronavirus as people suddenly can't afford to go to work anymore. What you do is give the proceeds of the carbon tax back to the populace, as Canada is doing. There may be some hardship, but it should mostly work out—on the whole, the rich create more carbon than the poor, so wealth will be redistributed to the more vulnerable. That last quality is also likely why conservatives don't like these plans, but until they provide an alternative I don't see what else to do. ("Do nothing because climate change doesn't exist" is not an alternative.)
emilibellot 7y ago
yes
dba7dba 7y ago
I respectfully disagree that airframe manufacturers should not be bailed out. Airframe manufacturer definitely should be preserved and not allowed to wither away. That kind of engineering/institutional knowledge should be preserved and developed. For the sake our environment, I think COMMUTING to office work should become the norm. Transportation (including commuting) is the country's second biggest source of carbon emissions, after the electricity sector. Both are far greater source of carbon emission than airline travel. https://www.worldwildlife.org/magazine/issues/summer-2017/articles/reducing-the-impact-of-commuting https://www.worldwildlife.org/magazine/issues/summer-2017/ar...
- dba7dba 7y ago
  Correction: I think COMMUTING to office work should become the norm. >> I think working from home should become the norm. Cutting down commuting will cut so much carbon foot print and also generally have a happier population.
alexbanks 7y ago
My altruistic side is with you. My cynic side says two weeks after we get the all clear, the whole earth goes back to its pre-covid state.

by spking 7y ago

option 7y ago

MAD, globalization and ease of travel is why WW3 is not happening. Be careful what you wish for. Scaling back civilization is not the solution. Technological progress and smart regulations are.

caoilte 7y ago
Those are pretty bold claims to make without sources. Maybe less air travel would be more civilized.
Wowfunhappy 7y ago
I agree about globalization, but Climate Change is just as likely to cause the type of instability that could lead to a WW3. It will certainly lead to massive suffering regardless. Until we have carbon-free or at least greatly-carbon-reduced air travel, we need to cut back on it.
enchiridion 7y ago
I'm pretty sure MAD is enough.
staticautomatic 7y ago
I had no idea Thomas Friedman was a HN member!
devmunchies 7y ago
> Scaling back civilization is not the solution. Technological progress and smart regulations are. Scaling back tech is definitely a solution. Especially a modern spin on "older" tech (e.g. bullet trains, passive solar heating). You speak so matter-of-factly yet there's no evidence that more "progress" is the solution, when there is no way to be sure (its a gamble), whereas its a fact that scaling back our reliance on more tech is a known solution.
evanlivingston 7y ago
Citation(s) needed.

s5300 7y ago

"If that means fewer flights available and higher prices in the future, that's a net positive for the planet as people will have to be more selective about travel." I've lurked near daily on HN for over five years - and this is the unfortunate comment I finally feel the need to make an account to reply to. I presume you're living in the U.S. based on your comment. I too live in the U.S., with severely debilitating health issues. I've been chronically ill for over half of my life now, and only just recently could I legally consume alcohol. I'm in the MidWest, and have to somewhat regularly fly to California and Massachusetts for medical treatment. I have no parents, and haven't throughout the duration of my illness. I receive no government assistance financially, because our medical system is shit on recognition of many musculoskeletal illnesses. My insurance is also shit in general, because medical care availability is shit in the U.S. Anyways, I'm practically only alive/still somewhat sentient because of availability of cheaper airline tickets to get to my care. Don't advocate for making accessibility even more expensive unless you're going to also make sure that people like me (which there's a surprising fuckload of) don't have to rely on it. Check your privilege, or something like that. Or maybe I should, and just let my body die ^__^

kaybe 7y ago
The problem is not availability of cheap airline tickets, it's availability of healthcare. The point (the transportation/energy use issue cannot be tackled without also working on the social problems) is an important one though.
- pathseeker 7y ago
  > The problem is not availability of cheap airline tickets, it's availability of healthcare. If we're talking about a rare disease, there is no solution other than moving to one of the few specialist centers in the world if air travel goes away.
  - munk-a 7y ago
    That's reasonable though - my step-son has a serious kidney issue and being close to the reneal specialists in my area has always been a consideration for where to live. Living with a rough disease is tough and my heart goes out to everyone that has to struggle in their daily lives but, it'll always be easier to relocate closer to the facility unless the trips are extremely infrequent and other factors are more important (like family, work etc...) In Canada this is less bad since being forced to move away from work for medical care doesn't prevent you from affording that care - in the US this can result in an impossible choice but :shrug: the US is broken and unable to afford a good standard of living for their citizens.

ummonk 7y ago

According to your link, they constitute only 3% of US emissions.

munk-a 7y ago

I think that this Pandemic might be just enough to shake up sales culture. For quite a while we've semi-illogically held on to in person sales being a premium experience - instead of salesmen being able to dial in and demo something remotely they'll be flown around from office to office to show it off in person. They do this because it works, because western culture values that "personal touch" and it actually pays for the price of flying these folks around. I am hoping that we can at least ditch the majority of business related flights when we come through this crisis as that alone would really dampen air flight volume.

pathseeker 7y ago

Just advocate for a carbon tax and be done with it. Don't arbitrarily decide which industries get to stay and which ones have to go. You ban air travel and suddenly people cover a big chunk of the difference with mass driving, causing significantly more deaths and increased CO2. (Remember: Southwest's most popular route is Dallas<->Houston which is drive-able)

jrockway 7y ago
A train between Houston and Dallas would be practical: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Central_Railway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Central_Railway I think the biggest blocker on high speed rail is being able to get places once you arrive, without a car. The Northeast Corridor works because you can get anywhere in New York, Boston, and DC with public transportation once you arrive. A lot of cities with intercity train service don't really have that option, so you end up driving to the train station, taking the train, and renting a car at your destination. At that point, you might as well fly because the steps are the same, but it's faster. Sure, you can tax carbon, especially passenger automobiles... but you will cause a much larger recession than Coronavirus as people suddenly can't afford to go to work anymore. The country was built on cheap driving. It has a disastrous climate impact, but it's too established to just will out of existence. It is a tough situation, which is why nothing is being done. (We can't even get our train tunnel between New York and New Jersey repaired, and that brings 200,000 people to and from work everyday.)
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  > Sure, you can tax carbon, especially passenger automobiles... but you will cause a much larger recession than Coronavirus as people suddenly can't afford to go to work anymore. What you do is give the proceeds of the carbon tax back to the populace, as Canada is doing. There may be some hardship, but it should mostly work out—on the whole, the rich create more carbon than the poor, so wealth will be redistributed to the more vulnerable. That last quality is also likely why conservatives don't like these plans, but until they provide an alternative I don't see what else to do. ("Do nothing because climate change doesn't exist" is not an alternative.)

emilibellot 7y ago

yes

dba7dba 7y ago

I respectfully disagree that airframe manufacturers should not be bailed out. Airframe manufacturer definitely should be preserved and not allowed to wither away. That kind of engineering/institutional knowledge should be preserved and developed. For the sake our environment, I think COMMUTING to office work should become the norm. Transportation (including commuting) is the country's second biggest source of carbon emissions, after the electricity sector. Both are far greater source of carbon emission than airline travel. https://www.worldwildlife.org/magazine/issues/summer-2017/articles/reducing-the-impact-of-commuting https://www.worldwildlife.org/magazine/issues/summer-2017/ar...

dba7dba 7y ago
Correction: I think COMMUTING to office work should become the norm. >> I think working from home should become the norm. Cutting down commuting will cut so much carbon foot print and also generally have a happier population.

alexbanks 7y ago

My altruistic side is with you. My cynic side says two weeks after we get the all clear, the whole earth goes back to its pre-covid state.