6 ms·
Air travel is not a problem because the emissions per kilometer are that bad but because one can easily travel one or two orders of magnitude farther than one u
by _Microft 5y ago
Air travel is not a problem because the emissions per kilometer are that bad but because one can easily travel one or two orders of magnitude farther than one usually would.
- onlyrealcuzzo 5y agoExactly. It's not like if you couldn't fly from Los Angeles to New York once a month - you would just drive by yourself - and produce the same amount of carbon. You wouldn't produce any carbon, because you'd likely never make the trip!
- Ericson2314 5y agoYes, this is why dealing with air is so tricky in economic terms, because "uninducing demand" does have more intrinsic downsides. Car -> rail is a mere political problem, once you get there it "unlocks" more travel so it is clearly economically good. I guess thank god for 9/11 boosting security theater. Don't like all the other patriot act garbage, but the degree to which air travel is so awful really helps here.
- jacobolus 5y agoAfter 9/11 air travel plateaued for 3–4 years, then afterward rebounded to the original trend line (i.e. massively expanded, and continues to expand). It doesn’t seem that all of the unpleasant security theater is enough to significantly deter people from flying.
- Ericson2314 5y agoNo one its own, but I think it would make a difference had we avoid hsr alternative.
- agent327 5y agoSo your preferred solution is to restrict the allowed travel radius of people, a bit like with medieval serfs?
- void_mint 5y agoNobody in this thread has suggested that.
- sokoloff 5y agoSomeone has now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27725760 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27725760
- the8472 5y agoRestrictions may not be needed. Remove subsidies and price in externalties.
- ClumsyPilot 5y agoMost people dont realise that aircraft industry and fsrming use special fuel and pay no tax on it. While it makes sence that we sibsidiae cost of food, it is less clear why we subsidise airlines
- vinay427 5y ago> While it makes sence that we sibsidiae cost of food That's already a thorny subject given that most governments also subsidize food sources that are vastly inefficient and resource-intensive even in cases where reasonable alternatives exist. Meat/dairy producers are still the primary recipients of subsidies in the US and many other countries, at least in Europe. This number distinguishes between fruit/vegetables and other products, although the article apparently suggests that the use of corn/soy in meat production makes this figure more relevant: > According to recent studies, the U.S. government spends up to $38 billion each year to subsidize the meat and dairy industries, with less than one percent of that sum allocated to aiding the production of fruits and vegetables. https://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/removing-meat-subsidy-our-cognitive-dissonance-around-animal-agriculture https://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/removing-meat-subsidy-our-cogn...
- tshaddox 5y agoTrue, but when you start comparing denominators in absolute terms you would also conclude that not traveling at all is the far superior choice. And also, that anything emitter (say, a gas grill) that’s unrelated to travel has infinite emissions per kilometer.
- 7952 5y agoAnd if we use your co2 per mile approach we can all conclude that a rocket is the way to travel. People judge these things in terms of how much co2 is emitted by industry, companies, individuals etc. The particular mechanism of emissions is not that relevant. Air ambulance flights are treated differently to private jets carrying bankers.
- pyuser583 5y agoWhy is further travel, per se, the problem?