9 ms·

I often hear that as individuals we can't really be held responsible for climate change and that instead we should look to our government to impose laws that re

by Permit 5y ago

I often hear that as individuals we can't really be held responsible for climate change and that instead we should look to our government to impose laws that restrict carbon output. This made me curious: what is the "fair" amount of carbon dioxide that the average individual can emit? According to this article[1][2] published in Nature it looks like the answer is 1.61 metric tons of CO2/year. That strikes me as close-to-impossible for industrialized nations to achieve. A round-trip flight from NYC to SF emits 1.5 metric tons per passenger. In order to reach 1.61 metric tons an individual would not be able to own a gas-powered car, could not regularly consume meat, could not live in remote areas only visitable by plane etc. Many things people don't even consider "luxuries" (like visiting family overseas) would be a non-starter. In France they implemented a modest fuel tax and they got the Yellow Vest Protests[3] in response. I can't see the average individual ever voting for a party that wouldn't let them visit family and nearly eliminate meat consumption. As China, India and Indonesia have industrialized their per-capita emissions have shot up well above these levels as well. I imagine the same thing will happen with African nations over the next 25-50 years. I don't really see any way out of this other than some miraculous technological breakthroughs like solar powered planes which I understand to be near-impossible with today's technology. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-018-0021-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-018-0021-4 [2] https://sci-hub.se/https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-018-0021-4 https://sci-hub.se/https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-01... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_protests

jacquesm 5y ago
> That strikes me as close-to-impossible for industrialized nations to achieve. A round-trip flight from NYC to SF emits 1.5 metric tons per passenger. In order to reach 1.61 metric tons an individual would not be able to own a gas-powered car, could not regularly consume meat, could not live in remote areas only visitable by plane etc. So? > Many things people don't even consider "luxuries" (like visiting family overseas) would be a non-starter. That is a luxury, whether you consider it one or not is irrelevant. When you emigrate there are certain consequences.
- richwater 5y ago
  No one except loonies see "You can't own a car, consume meat live anywhere but NYC and can't visit your family 5 states over" and are okay with it.
  - wiml 5y ago
    It doesn't matter who's okay with it. We have a choice between that, or an even less pleasant future. "Everything is awesome forever and we don't have to pay for it" is simply not one of the options.
    - yourapostasy 5y ago
      > We have a choice between that, or an even less pleasant future. "Everything is awesome forever and we don't have to pay for it" is simply not one of the options. When I see these flat assertions stated as foregone conclusions IRL by friends, I am prompted to ask, “What mitigations did you already implement against this conclusion?” Revealed preferences demonstrate that overwhelmingly their assertions are far stronger than their mitigations. This is worrisome, as it shows even “true believers” are not taking commensurate action. The dislocation when it arrives, if as large a magnitude as claimed by IPCC, will be large even for that cohort.
- octaonalocto 5y ago
  I strongly disagree with your comment. Your definition of luxury is narrow and proscriptive. If you're trying to evaluate whether people would accept certain changes in their lifestyle, their definition of luxury is the one that matters. In a tight definition, indoor plumbing is a luxury. As a person whose family vacations used to include an outhouse, I most certainly do not consider that a luxury in my life.
  - emn13 5y ago
    The whole scenario is far fetched. We're imagining some egalitarian world (won't happen), in which with today's technology we need to make due with tomorrows resources, but without time to adapt and find alternatives. More realistically, we need to start making at least some steps. If air travel becomes more expensive, we'll do less of it, and at least try to find alternatives, personally. Society might try to find workarounds, like negative emissions, or construct alternatives (like high-speed rail) that are "good enough", at least for many flights. We might have alternative, emissions free fuel, someday. But the real point is: this is not going to be as extreme as is sketched simply because inequality isn't going away, and secondly - this is necessarily going to happen gradually, so the impact will be reduced as society will have time to adapt. Let's just hope gradually doesn't mean glacially, because then we'll pay the climate price.
tomcooks 5y ago
>In order to reach 1.61 metric tons an individual would not be able to own a gas-powered car, could not regularly consume meat, could not live in remote areas only visitable by plane etc. Many things people don't even consider "luxuries" (like visiting family overseas) would be a non-starter. So literally what was normal life in Europe up to the 80's, even 90s for some regions. It's not difficult to imagine how to accomplish this, we have even more available to make life comfortable. Ask anyone born in the 50's, they'll share tricks.
- onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
  Are electric planes physically impossible or just not realistic with current oil prices and no carbon tax?
  - neltnerb 5y ago
    Mostly fuel energy density vs battery energy density. You can use some biofuels (limonene) as a near-direct substitute for jet fuel though. I think maybe you need to change a few o-rings but the vapor pressure, combustion point, etc are all there and it's been demonstrated in Australia.
  - aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA 5y ago
    “Why Electric Planes are Inevitably Coming” https://youtu.be/aH4b3sAs-l8 https://youtu.be/aH4b3sAs-l8 tldr: They’re already being deployed in some shorthaul routes.
  - cableshaft 5y ago
    There are electric planes out there, but they're pretty small. You're not likely going to see any electric 747s anytime soon, if ever. "A battery's efficiency, or ability to hold power, is measured in specific energy. Right now, even the best batteries have a specific energy of only 250 watt-hours per kilogram, but we have to get closer to 800 to really start flying, and that is still nothing compared to jet fuel's specific energy, which is nearly 12,000 watt-hours per kilogram." "So if you want to add more power to a plane, you need to get a bigger battery, and to get that plane airborne despite the weight, you'll need even bigger battery that's more powerful, but that means more weight. And then you'll need an even bigger battery to offset that weight." https://www.businessinsider.com/electric-planes-future-of-aviation-problems-regulations-2020-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/electric-planes-future-of-av...
notJim 5y ago
I agree these are huge challenges, and that climate activists are unrealistic in their expectations of how much people are willing to sacrifice or change. I would guess most climate activists take more than one flight per year, and certainly I do as someone who is concerned about climate (in non-COVID times.) For this reason, I really think technology has to be used to solve these problems. EVs, public transit, and high-speed rail where it makes sense are very straightforward answers for many things. There is also low-hanging fruit like insulating buildings, and switching buildings to use electricity instead of natural gas. In the US, all of these could be accelerated mostly with government subsidies. There aren't really any major technical hurdles to adopting them right now. Beyond that, I think we have to have carbon capture, and carbon-neutral biofuels. That would enable us to continue flying and eating meat. Hopefully lab-grown meats also pan out in the coming decades or so.
- pillefitz 5y ago
  That's the mindset that brought us here.
randomluck040 5y ago
I get all the points but the eating meat part. We simply don’t need it, there is no benefit anymore. Not contradicting your overall point though, even if some things are luxury. We got used to it which is why we might not consider it as luxury. I don’t think we’ll have solar powered planes but maybe emission free trains?
emn13 5y ago
The world is going to need a combination of a bunch of policies. It's not just emissions reduction; it's also carbon sinks, and adaptation to the non-avoided impacts. Also, none of this needs to happen overnight, and every step along the way is helpful. Even if we fail to achieve the optimistic target of 1.5C, that doesn't mean it's all pointless and we might as well emit whatever. And that means that those targets aren't all that important. We need emissions reductions, the more the merrier, whether or not we hit some kind of arbitrary goal or not. Whether we reach those exact benchmarks you propose or not kind of doesn't matter. I'd just like to additionally point out that however unfair perhaps, the premise of that nature article is some kind of super-unrealistic sci-fi, because there's no question of everybody on the planet having the resources for "high life satisfaction", including perhaps your proposed annual plane trips. In fact, it's likely that the annual median number of plane trips even by Americans is... zero - at least most years: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1579/Airlines.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1579/Airlines.aspx - and even the average is just 2 or so; this is clearly a luxury. Additionally, carbon-negative processes will be necessary. How expensive that turns out to be, and how much carbon planes need to emit will hopefully play a role in pricing plane trips in the future. For now, we could start by at least taxing jet fuel appropriately.
vimy 5y ago
The lockdowns prove your point. People hate living like that. And it also shows behavioral change is pointless. In 2020 we had barely any airplane traffic. Factories all over the world closed, China was basically closed for business for two months. No traffic since everyone stayed at home. Less frivolous consumption, world gdp contracted almost 5 % = degrowth. Result for this horrible way of living? A measly 7 % lower emissions in 2020. A reduction that can only be achieved once, you can’t close the same factory twice. We need 10 % lower every year… That’s not worth changing my whole lifestyle for. I’d rather pay for geo-engineering solutions instead of something that lowers my quality of life and ultimately doesn’t do much to solve the problem.
- arcanon 5y ago
  What about high resolution satellite pollution maps and airstrikes? If the combustion engines or the refineries are not destroyed, they will be used. We could start slowly with only the dirtiest targets. Doing this now is less aggressive then what will happen after global crop failures.
  - arcanon 5y ago
    Thinking about this more… This depends on electric flight. You cant stop the refineries with uavs powered by their targets product. It may be that electric flight is the cornerstone to emission prevention.
  - warble 5y ago
    Global crop failures is pretty far fetched. Even the IPCC lowers the projections every year. Not a denier in the least, but we have over-estimated the impact in a huge way.
    - arcanon 5y ago
      Im sure it wont be like a biblical plague, but the IPCC report that came out moments ago reiterated the 20 year to 1.5 C+ timeline. What matters is if a crop failure hits a nation with few friends and lots of nukes.
bjoli 5y ago
I live in an energy-efficient appartment, drive less than 100km/month. I rarely buy clothes. I rarely buy tech stuff (except for a new phone every 3-4 years). I don't fly. I eat no animal products. All my electricity comes from renewable sources (sweden has a lot of hydro power). There is no way in hell I am even close to 1.6 metric tons of co2, and I really tried to bring it down. Every calculator I try put me at about 1/3 of the average swede, which would mean I am at about 2.5 metric tons.
- emn13 5y ago
  Don't forget food etc - even as a vegetarian, in Europe, you're likely to hit that 1.6 tons number just with food, or come close to it, at least as much as my google-foo tells me. Of course, these numbers are all quite hard to estimate, and particularly for animal products (which you don't consume!) include questionable factors like land-use changes - which are questionable not because they don't matter, but because of the remarkably optimistic assumption that land use change is driven by consumption, rather than driven by the low cost of said change for those actively doing it. But sure, it sounds like you've found a lifestyle that works for you and has at least considerably less impact, regardless of the exact number (and ignoring the exact number is likely wise anyhow). Great!
Robotbeat 5y ago
Domestic flights wouldn’t be hard to electrify (815km range within 4-5 years, 1300km range within 10 years… enough to electrify short haul flights which are half of all passenger miles traveled by air… and most medium/long haul flights can be broken up to shorter routes), and you can also do electric car road trips (I just drove from Texas to Virginia in a Model S). Eventually, even long haul flights (~4000-5000km) could be electrified. It’s ultimately not hard to reduce emissions to low levels. Just use electricity for stuff we usually use fossil fuels for now. Until 1950 or so, most hydrogen for fertilizer was made with electrolysis, so it wouldn’t be hard to do that. Many homes are already heated purely electrically. Several electrical grids have very low per-kWh emissions. Mix of nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, and geothermal makes it pretty feasible. Even new iron in new plants in the US (the steel which isn’t recycled already in arc furnaces) is about half made with hydrogen (as part of natural gas syngas) and could be tweaked to be ~90-95% hydrogen. It’s not hard or even particularly expensive. We just gotta do it and quit telling people the only way to fight climate change is castration (literal or metaphorical, ie degrowth). (Also, a crewed solar powered plane flew around the world a few years ago, although you’d want to use mostly battery electric.) …really, the hard thing to electrify are the long haul transoceanic flights. A yearly visit to relatives in France has a massive carbon footprint right now, but it’s also something almost no one does (compared to commuting, having a house in the suburbs, domestic flights, and road trips, which are relatively easy to decarbonize). An appropriate carbon price on the few electrification-resistant sectors would address the problem efficiently.
LaundroMat 5y ago
> In France they implemented a modest fuel tax and they got the Yellow Vest Protests in response. I can't see the average individual ever voting for a party that wouldn't let them visit family and nearly eliminate meat consumption. The Yellow Vests protests were against the tax and its unevenly distributed burden (the wealthy can easily pay that tax). If a government were to discourage people from eating meat or travelling in planes through other means than taxes, I'm not so sure we'd see Yellow Vest protests.
rtbtobi 5y ago
Ever thought about all those governments and complexity? Simplicity for unity: https://github.com/rene-tobner/unity https://github.com/rene-tobner/unity
doitLP 5y ago
Lots of responses here focusing on planes and air travel. Just wanted to call out what a small part (1.9%) of the problem that actually is: https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector
- teh_klev 5y ago
  Yes, but all the small parts add up.
- UglyToad 5y ago
  Thanks for re-iterating this. Granted, due to where the emissions take place, air travel is slightly stronger/higher but I feel like the sole focus on air travel is an annoying feature of a lot of climate-change discussions. It's something we really don't have many technically or economically viable alternatives for yet. Why don't climate-change measures and discussions focus on the other 95%+ of sources that are easier to address?
vaylian 5y ago
> That strikes me as close-to-impossible for industrialized nations to achieve. A round-trip flight from NYC to SF emits 1.5 metric tons per passenger. In order to reach 1.61 metric tons an individual would not be able to own a gas-powered car, could not regularly consume meat, could not live in remote areas only visitable by plane etc. Many things people don't even consider "luxuries" (like visiting family overseas) would be a non-starter. I'm surprised that you describe this as close-to-impossible. My current situation is exactly that and I'm fine. But maybe it's a lot easier to live in the EU compared to the US.
pasabagi 5y ago
I do everything you've said, essentially 'by accident'. I don't have a car, don't fly, and don't live in a remote area. It's basically a function of how good the infrastructure is. If you live in a dense city, with good cycle lanes, and decent train connections, you don't really need a car. Not flying is also enabled by this. Everybody could definitely live like this. I would actually prefer it - cars degrade my cycling experience. I think it's just a function of shit urban planning that makes this impossible in some places. It would be a major social change, but no more major than everybody moving out of cities and into suburbs in the first place.
- kory 5y ago
  I enjoy my car. I enjoy maintaining a building, going hiking, exploring the countryside, etc. The left wing politics, density, and “urbanness” of big cities is not for me. I much prefer the open road, nature, etc. I want to retire to 10 acres of land. All of that, I can’t do without a car. I don’t think everyone could live like you, since it’s just not the majority societal preference. People never evolved to live in concrete jungles.
908B64B197 5y ago
When you look at who's polluting and who's emissions are on an upward trajectory, there's one obvious country that's actively working against the environment. China's emissions aren't slowing down. Coal is incredibly cheap when there's no carbon tax or emission standards. One of the many reasons it's cheaper to manufacture in China and why North Americans and Europeans can't compete [0]. Comparing the US[1] and China[2], the US has: - Decreasing per capita emissions in the US starting in 1973 (-27%) - A decrease in the countries emission starting in 2007 (-13%) Meanwhile for the same period China has had - a 7x increase per capita since 1973 (+532%) - 48% increase for its global emissions since 2007 So it is possible to drastically reduce our carbon footprint thanks to innovation and smarter power generation. Time to add tariffs on goods produced by states who made the decision of going all-in on polluting power generation, and potentially apply immigration quotas to citizens of these countries. > In France they implemented a modest fuel tax and they got the Yellow Vest Protests The thing with fuel taxes is that, well, it doesn't help anyone. The poor single mother living and working in an area without great transit option will still have to rely on her car. Is the new tax going to help her afford an electric one or will it just contributes to some underperforming bureaucrat's pension fund? [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/26/us-leads-greenhouse-gas-emissions-on-a-per-capita-basis-report-finds.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/26/us-leads-greenhouse-gas-emis... [1] https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states [2] https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china
- gizmondo 5y ago
  Why would you compare derivatives and not absolute values when designating who is "actively working against the environment"? Objectively US is polluting way more per capita.
  - 908B64B197 5y ago
    Derivatives shows trajectories.
    - gizmondo 5y ago
rbanffy 5y ago
> That strikes me as close-to-impossible for industrialized nations to achieve. A round-trip flight from NYC to SF emits 1.5 metric tons per passenger. High speed rail may help here. It won’t be faster than planes anytime soon, but if you factor the TSA lines and delays in lounges, it may be a lot more comfortable for shorter routes like NYC to Chicago.

by Permit 5y ago

jacquesm 5y ago

> That strikes me as close-to-impossible for industrialized nations to achieve. A round-trip flight from NYC to SF emits 1.5 metric tons per passenger. In order to reach 1.61 metric tons an individual would not be able to own a gas-powered car, could not regularly consume meat, could not live in remote areas only visitable by plane etc. So? > Many things people don't even consider "luxuries" (like visiting family overseas) would be a non-starter. That is a luxury, whether you consider it one or not is irrelevant. When you emigrate there are certain consequences.

richwater 5y ago
No one except loonies see "You can't own a car, consume meat live anywhere but NYC and can't visit your family 5 states over" and are okay with it.
- wiml 5y ago
  It doesn't matter who's okay with it. We have a choice between that, or an even less pleasant future. "Everything is awesome forever and we don't have to pay for it" is simply not one of the options.
  - yourapostasy 5y ago
    > We have a choice between that, or an even less pleasant future. "Everything is awesome forever and we don't have to pay for it" is simply not one of the options. When I see these flat assertions stated as foregone conclusions IRL by friends, I am prompted to ask, “What mitigations did you already implement against this conclusion?” Revealed preferences demonstrate that overwhelmingly their assertions are far stronger than their mitigations. This is worrisome, as it shows even “true believers” are not taking commensurate action. The dislocation when it arrives, if as large a magnitude as claimed by IPCC, will be large even for that cohort.
octaonalocto 5y ago
I strongly disagree with your comment. Your definition of luxury is narrow and proscriptive. If you're trying to evaluate whether people would accept certain changes in their lifestyle, their definition of luxury is the one that matters. In a tight definition, indoor plumbing is a luxury. As a person whose family vacations used to include an outhouse, I most certainly do not consider that a luxury in my life.
- emn13 5y ago
  The whole scenario is far fetched. We're imagining some egalitarian world (won't happen), in which with today's technology we need to make due with tomorrows resources, but without time to adapt and find alternatives. More realistically, we need to start making at least some steps. If air travel becomes more expensive, we'll do less of it, and at least try to find alternatives, personally. Society might try to find workarounds, like negative emissions, or construct alternatives (like high-speed rail) that are "good enough", at least for many flights. We might have alternative, emissions free fuel, someday. But the real point is: this is not going to be as extreme as is sketched simply because inequality isn't going away, and secondly - this is necessarily going to happen gradually, so the impact will be reduced as society will have time to adapt. Let's just hope gradually doesn't mean glacially, because then we'll pay the climate price.

tomcooks 5y ago

>In order to reach 1.61 metric tons an individual would not be able to own a gas-powered car, could not regularly consume meat, could not live in remote areas only visitable by plane etc. Many things people don't even consider "luxuries" (like visiting family overseas) would be a non-starter. So literally what was normal life in Europe up to the 80's, even 90s for some regions. It's not difficult to imagine how to accomplish this, we have even more available to make life comfortable. Ask anyone born in the 50's, they'll share tricks.

onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
Are electric planes physically impossible or just not realistic with current oil prices and no carbon tax?
- neltnerb 5y ago
  Mostly fuel energy density vs battery energy density. You can use some biofuels (limonene) as a near-direct substitute for jet fuel though. I think maybe you need to change a few o-rings but the vapor pressure, combustion point, etc are all there and it's been demonstrated in Australia.
- aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA 5y ago
  “Why Electric Planes are Inevitably Coming” https://youtu.be/aH4b3sAs-l8 https://youtu.be/aH4b3sAs-l8 tldr: They’re already being deployed in some shorthaul routes.
- cableshaft 5y ago
  There are electric planes out there, but they're pretty small. You're not likely going to see any electric 747s anytime soon, if ever. "A battery's efficiency, or ability to hold power, is measured in specific energy. Right now, even the best batteries have a specific energy of only 250 watt-hours per kilogram, but we have to get closer to 800 to really start flying, and that is still nothing compared to jet fuel's specific energy, which is nearly 12,000 watt-hours per kilogram." "So if you want to add more power to a plane, you need to get a bigger battery, and to get that plane airborne despite the weight, you'll need even bigger battery that's more powerful, but that means more weight. And then you'll need an even bigger battery to offset that weight." https://www.businessinsider.com/electric-planes-future-of-aviation-problems-regulations-2020-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/electric-planes-future-of-av...

notJim 5y ago

I agree these are huge challenges, and that climate activists are unrealistic in their expectations of how much people are willing to sacrifice or change. I would guess most climate activists take more than one flight per year, and certainly I do as someone who is concerned about climate (in non-COVID times.) For this reason, I really think technology has to be used to solve these problems. EVs, public transit, and high-speed rail where it makes sense are very straightforward answers for many things. There is also low-hanging fruit like insulating buildings, and switching buildings to use electricity instead of natural gas. In the US, all of these could be accelerated mostly with government subsidies. There aren't really any major technical hurdles to adopting them right now. Beyond that, I think we have to have carbon capture, and carbon-neutral biofuels. That would enable us to continue flying and eating meat. Hopefully lab-grown meats also pan out in the coming decades or so.

pillefitz 5y ago
That's the mindset that brought us here.

randomluck040 5y ago

I get all the points but the eating meat part. We simply don’t need it, there is no benefit anymore. Not contradicting your overall point though, even if some things are luxury. We got used to it which is why we might not consider it as luxury. I don’t think we’ll have solar powered planes but maybe emission free trains?

emn13 5y ago

The world is going to need a combination of a bunch of policies. It's not just emissions reduction; it's also carbon sinks, and adaptation to the non-avoided impacts. Also, none of this needs to happen overnight, and every step along the way is helpful. Even if we fail to achieve the optimistic target of 1.5C, that doesn't mean it's all pointless and we might as well emit whatever. And that means that those targets aren't all that important. We need emissions reductions, the more the merrier, whether or not we hit some kind of arbitrary goal or not. Whether we reach those exact benchmarks you propose or not kind of doesn't matter. I'd just like to additionally point out that however unfair perhaps, the premise of that nature article is some kind of super-unrealistic sci-fi, because there's no question of everybody on the planet having the resources for "high life satisfaction", including perhaps your proposed annual plane trips. In fact, it's likely that the annual median number of plane trips even by Americans is... zero - at least most years: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1579/Airlines.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1579/Airlines.aspx - and even the average is just 2 or so; this is clearly a luxury. Additionally, carbon-negative processes will be necessary. How expensive that turns out to be, and how much carbon planes need to emit will hopefully play a role in pricing plane trips in the future. For now, we could start by at least taxing jet fuel appropriately.

vimy 5y ago

The lockdowns prove your point. People hate living like that. And it also shows behavioral change is pointless. In 2020 we had barely any airplane traffic. Factories all over the world closed, China was basically closed for business for two months. No traffic since everyone stayed at home. Less frivolous consumption, world gdp contracted almost 5 % = degrowth. Result for this horrible way of living? A measly 7 % lower emissions in 2020. A reduction that can only be achieved once, you can’t close the same factory twice. We need 10 % lower every year… That’s not worth changing my whole lifestyle for. I’d rather pay for geo-engineering solutions instead of something that lowers my quality of life and ultimately doesn’t do much to solve the problem.

arcanon 5y ago
What about high resolution satellite pollution maps and airstrikes? If the combustion engines or the refineries are not destroyed, they will be used. We could start slowly with only the dirtiest targets. Doing this now is less aggressive then what will happen after global crop failures.
- arcanon 5y ago
  Thinking about this more… This depends on electric flight. You cant stop the refineries with uavs powered by their targets product. It may be that electric flight is the cornerstone to emission prevention.
- warble 5y ago
  Global crop failures is pretty far fetched. Even the IPCC lowers the projections every year. Not a denier in the least, but we have over-estimated the impact in a huge way.
  - arcanon 5y ago
    Im sure it wont be like a biblical plague, but the IPCC report that came out moments ago reiterated the 20 year to 1.5 C+ timeline. What matters is if a crop failure hits a nation with few friends and lots of nukes.

bjoli 5y ago

I live in an energy-efficient appartment, drive less than 100km/month. I rarely buy clothes. I rarely buy tech stuff (except for a new phone every 3-4 years). I don't fly. I eat no animal products. All my electricity comes from renewable sources (sweden has a lot of hydro power). There is no way in hell I am even close to 1.6 metric tons of co2, and I really tried to bring it down. Every calculator I try put me at about 1/3 of the average swede, which would mean I am at about 2.5 metric tons.

emn13 5y ago
Don't forget food etc - even as a vegetarian, in Europe, you're likely to hit that 1.6 tons number just with food, or come close to it, at least as much as my google-foo tells me. Of course, these numbers are all quite hard to estimate, and particularly for animal products (which you don't consume!) include questionable factors like land-use changes - which are questionable not because they don't matter, but because of the remarkably optimistic assumption that land use change is driven by consumption, rather than driven by the low cost of said change for those actively doing it. But sure, it sounds like you've found a lifestyle that works for you and has at least considerably less impact, regardless of the exact number (and ignoring the exact number is likely wise anyhow). Great!

Robotbeat 5y ago

Domestic flights wouldn’t be hard to electrify (815km range within 4-5 years, 1300km range within 10 years… enough to electrify short haul flights which are half of all passenger miles traveled by air… and most medium/long haul flights can be broken up to shorter routes), and you can also do electric car road trips (I just drove from Texas to Virginia in a Model S). Eventually, even long haul flights (~4000-5000km) could be electrified. It’s ultimately not hard to reduce emissions to low levels. Just use electricity for stuff we usually use fossil fuels for now. Until 1950 or so, most hydrogen for fertilizer was made with electrolysis, so it wouldn’t be hard to do that. Many homes are already heated purely electrically. Several electrical grids have very low per-kWh emissions. Mix of nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, and geothermal makes it pretty feasible. Even new iron in new plants in the US (the steel which isn’t recycled already in arc furnaces) is about half made with hydrogen (as part of natural gas syngas) and could be tweaked to be ~90-95% hydrogen. It’s not hard or even particularly expensive. We just gotta do it and quit telling people the only way to fight climate change is castration (literal or metaphorical, ie degrowth). (Also, a crewed solar powered plane flew around the world a few years ago, although you’d want to use mostly battery electric.) …really, the hard thing to electrify are the long haul transoceanic flights. A yearly visit to relatives in France has a massive carbon footprint right now, but it’s also something almost no one does (compared to commuting, having a house in the suburbs, domestic flights, and road trips, which are relatively easy to decarbonize). An appropriate carbon price on the few electrification-resistant sectors would address the problem efficiently.

LaundroMat 5y ago

> In France they implemented a modest fuel tax and they got the Yellow Vest Protests in response. I can't see the average individual ever voting for a party that wouldn't let them visit family and nearly eliminate meat consumption. The Yellow Vests protests were against the tax and its unevenly distributed burden (the wealthy can easily pay that tax). If a government were to discourage people from eating meat or travelling in planes through other means than taxes, I'm not so sure we'd see Yellow Vest protests.

rtbtobi 5y ago

Ever thought about all those governments and complexity? Simplicity for unity: https://github.com/rene-tobner/unity https://github.com/rene-tobner/unity

doitLP 5y ago

Lots of responses here focusing on planes and air travel. Just wanted to call out what a small part (1.9%) of the problem that actually is: https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector

teh_klev 5y ago
Yes, but all the small parts add up.
UglyToad 5y ago
Thanks for re-iterating this. Granted, due to where the emissions take place, air travel is slightly stronger/higher but I feel like the sole focus on air travel is an annoying feature of a lot of climate-change discussions. It's something we really don't have many technically or economically viable alternatives for yet. Why don't climate-change measures and discussions focus on the other 95%+ of sources that are easier to address?

vaylian 5y ago

> That strikes me as close-to-impossible for industrialized nations to achieve. A round-trip flight from NYC to SF emits 1.5 metric tons per passenger. In order to reach 1.61 metric tons an individual would not be able to own a gas-powered car, could not regularly consume meat, could not live in remote areas only visitable by plane etc. Many things people don't even consider "luxuries" (like visiting family overseas) would be a non-starter. I'm surprised that you describe this as close-to-impossible. My current situation is exactly that and I'm fine. But maybe it's a lot easier to live in the EU compared to the US.

pasabagi 5y ago

I do everything you've said, essentially 'by accident'. I don't have a car, don't fly, and don't live in a remote area. It's basically a function of how good the infrastructure is. If you live in a dense city, with good cycle lanes, and decent train connections, you don't really need a car. Not flying is also enabled by this. Everybody could definitely live like this. I would actually prefer it - cars degrade my cycling experience. I think it's just a function of shit urban planning that makes this impossible in some places. It would be a major social change, but no more major than everybody moving out of cities and into suburbs in the first place.

kory 5y ago
I enjoy my car. I enjoy maintaining a building, going hiking, exploring the countryside, etc. The left wing politics, density, and “urbanness” of big cities is not for me. I much prefer the open road, nature, etc. I want to retire to 10 acres of land. All of that, I can’t do without a car. I don’t think everyone could live like you, since it’s just not the majority societal preference. People never evolved to live in concrete jungles.

908B64B197 5y ago

When you look at who's polluting and who's emissions are on an upward trajectory, there's one obvious country that's actively working against the environment. China's emissions aren't slowing down. Coal is incredibly cheap when there's no carbon tax or emission standards. One of the many reasons it's cheaper to manufacture in China and why North Americans and Europeans can't compete [0]. Comparing the US[1] and China[2], the US has: - Decreasing per capita emissions in the US starting in 1973 (-27%) - A decrease in the countries emission starting in 2007 (-13%) Meanwhile for the same period China has had - a 7x increase per capita since 1973 (+532%) - 48% increase for its global emissions since 2007 So it is possible to drastically reduce our carbon footprint thanks to innovation and smarter power generation. Time to add tariffs on goods produced by states who made the decision of going all-in on polluting power generation, and potentially apply immigration quotas to citizens of these countries. > In France they implemented a modest fuel tax and they got the Yellow Vest Protests The thing with fuel taxes is that, well, it doesn't help anyone. The poor single mother living and working in an area without great transit option will still have to rely on her car. Is the new tax going to help her afford an electric one or will it just contributes to some underperforming bureaucrat's pension fund? [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/26/us-leads-greenhouse-gas-emissions-on-a-per-capita-basis-report-finds.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/26/us-leads-greenhouse-gas-emis... [1] https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states [2] https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china

gizmondo 5y ago
Why would you compare derivatives and not absolute values when designating who is "actively working against the environment"? Objectively US is polluting way more per capita.
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  Derivatives shows trajectories.
  - gizmondo 5y ago

rbanffy 5y ago

> That strikes me as close-to-impossible for industrialized nations to achieve. A round-trip flight from NYC to SF emits 1.5 metric tons per passenger. High speed rail may help here. It won’t be faster than planes anytime soon, but if you factor the TSA lines and delays in lounges, it may be a lot more comfortable for shorter routes like NYC to Chicago.