3 ms·
To reply to makersofspoons the blog post cited sources the 3 ton figure from a 2011 UN report. The report only mentions the figure in the summary and states "3
by ch4s3 6y ago
To reply to makersofspoons the blog post cited sources the 3 ton figure from a 2011 UN report. The report only mentions the figure in the summary and states "3 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per capita by 2050 MAY
need to be considered". This seems a little thin for advocating the eradication of aviation in 2020.
- makerofspoons 6y agoIt's in line with the 2019 IPCC report, which called for an 80% reduction by 2050 https://grist.org/article/how-soon-do-we-need-to-cut-greenhouse-gas-emissions/ https://grist.org/article/how-soon-do-we-need-to-cut-greenho... There's really no budget for burning kerosene if we are serious about the 1.5 degree target. The only way I see aviation being compatible is if there is a massive breakthrough in biofuels or battery technology.
- ch4s3 6y agoThat article doesn't directly cite any IPCC report. This actual IPCC policy maker summary report[1] makes exactly 1 mention of air travel and it is to suggest structurally shifting some air travel to rail as a minor component of improving total transit emissions. [1]https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SR15_Chapter2_Low_Res.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SR15...
- makerofspoons 6y agoYou're right, I cited the wrong article. The summary does mention air travel only once, but it does mention the 80% reduction figure, which seems nearly incompatible with air travel if everyone is expected to live with yearly emissions of ~3-4 tons of CO2.