4 ms·

Let's instead get rid of private air travel. Has caused a pandemic and millions of deaths. And the emissions are very likely larger than those of Bitcoin. Peo

Let's instead get rid of private air travel. Has caused a pandemic and millions of deaths. And the emissions are very likely larger than those of Bitcoin. People can go on vacation by train instead. If you demand people use slow legacy money then I can demand slow legacy travel, ok? ;)

inter_netuser 5y ago
people on this forum love private jets, but hate bitcoin. why? ppl that travel on private jets can travel commercial, or are some people exempt from climate change damage somehow?
- detaro 5y ago
  ... the GP didn't argue for getting rid of "private jets", but for getting rid of commercial air travel.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    They literally said “Let's instead get rid of private air travel”, which I interpreted (reasonably I think) to mean private aviation (where you know the other passengers) not public airline (Delta, KLM, British Air, etc.)
    - detaro 5y ago
      Because private planes are relevant travel amounts to "cause a pandemic", and "People can go on vacation by train instead" makes sense when talking about private planes (vs "can fly commercial"?)?
      - sokoloff 5y ago
        I agree their conclusion was ridiculous. However, it seems equally ridiculous to conclude “even though they specifically said white, they must have meant black, and for you to read white into their argument is a willful misconstruing of their argument.”
pmg101 5y ago
I see you're getting downvoted but maybe "get rid of" isn't the best approach. Certainly taxing air travel at a chunky rate would reduce unnecessary flights.
- eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 5y ago
  Parent suggested "getting rid of bitcoin" so I dare to suggest getting rid of something else as well :)
- wiz21c 5y ago
  Taxing it means : the rich will be able to continue to fly while the poor, not being able to travel anymore because of the tax, will support the burden of climate adaptation. That's not justice. And that's the issue : climate change requires a global effort and if we want to have the masses to adapt, then we must have the elite to adapt equally.
  - corney91 5y ago
    A frequent flyer tax would help here. Everyone gets a tax-free flight, then a low tax for the next one, and it keeps increasing for more flying. ~23 minutes in this podcast describes it and explains how it'd make a huge impact: https://www.cheerfulpodcast.com/rtbc-episodes/fair-miles https://www.cheerfulpodcast.com/rtbc-episodes/fair-miles The key stat is it'd be enough to reach the UK's target on carbon emissions from flying by 2050, at a cost of 0% for the first flight and 9% on the second (going up steeply from there). Of course, other countries may have different data but the principle should be the same.
  - QasimK 5y ago
    The rich will support the burden of climate adaptation because the income from the tax can be used directly to help mitigate climate change. The vast majority of flights are taken by a small minority of people; they're taken by the richest. Take the United Kingdom as an example: 70% of all flights were taken by 15% of people [0]. It certainly isn't the poorest taking these flights. So taxing flights will have less direct impact on the poorest than one might think. Having said that, I think a charge on carbon is more fair than taxing flights directly. [0]: https://fullfact.org/economy/do-15-people-take-70-flights/ https://fullfact.org/economy/do-15-people-take-70-flights/
JCWasmx86 5y ago
I frankly don't think this would make sense. Imagine explaining the people of a country, that they aren't allowed to fly to e.g. Mallorca anymore. The acceptance would be somewhere between low and zero. Maybe private air travel in one country, e.g. from Munich to Berlin could be reduced, but not international flights without any resistance
- gambiting 5y ago
  They should be allowed to travel, of course - but the carbon tax on flights should mean that a flight to Mallorca is a £1000 per person each way.
- de_keyboard 5y ago
  This is why we are screwed. I think deep down majority knows the climate is changing, but they are not prepared to make any personal sacrifices.
  - thevagrant 5y ago
    I know people making changes in their lives but it does appear hopeless right now. I drive much less and will look at solar panels eventually an electric car. I know some who already did move in that direction. I can plant some trees in my yard and make better choices with consumption however, what's to stop countries who still build coal power plants or coal still being mined? I despair. Many ppl are switching to electric cars thinking they did good, and yet they charge those same cars using energy supplied by burning fossil fuel. I'm not completely convinced solar panels or electric cars are produced cleanly. More needs to be done about that. How do we know for sure the energy used to make these are not adding to the problem. Even worse is that old petrol cars will usually be onsold to other countries, so emissions can't be falling? An individual can only do so much. Most people will bury their head in the sand. Those who take action may be pissing in the wind without realizing it.
mtekman 5y ago
Emissions from aviation contributes 3% to greenhouse gasses.
- adrianN 5y ago
  That's a fairy big chunk. Especially if you take into account that globally almost nobody can afford to fly.
- aenario 5y ago
  *historically contributed Will contribute 6-10% of yearly emission in the coming years
- QasimK 5y ago
  The emissions from aviation are increasing every year, the majority of flights are for holidays rather than business, and only a very small minority of people globally actually take flights. However, I belive the parent commenter was more pointing out the unfairness of picking and choosing what to ban rather than imposing a blanket charge on carbon. This seems to have been missed by most, even when considering that the parent is likely correct that flights have a greater, and increasingly greater, impact on climate change than bitcoin does.
_Algernon_ 5y ago
At least remove subsidies from all air travel, and add a carbon tax on top. Would make train much more competitive on many routes.

inter_netuser 5y ago

people on this forum love private jets, but hate bitcoin. why? ppl that travel on private jets can travel commercial, or are some people exempt from climate change damage somehow?

detaro 5y ago
... the GP didn't argue for getting rid of "private jets", but for getting rid of commercial air travel.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  They literally said “Let's instead get rid of private air travel”, which I interpreted (reasonably I think) to mean private aviation (where you know the other passengers) not public airline (Delta, KLM, British Air, etc.)
  - detaro 5y ago
    Because private planes are relevant travel amounts to "cause a pandemic", and "People can go on vacation by train instead" makes sense when talking about private planes (vs "can fly commercial"?)?
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      I agree their conclusion was ridiculous. However, it seems equally ridiculous to conclude “even though they specifically said white, they must have meant black, and for you to read white into their argument is a willful misconstruing of their argument.”

pmg101 5y ago

I see you're getting downvoted but maybe "get rid of" isn't the best approach. Certainly taxing air travel at a chunky rate would reduce unnecessary flights.

eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 5y ago
Parent suggested "getting rid of bitcoin" so I dare to suggest getting rid of something else as well :)
wiz21c 5y ago
Taxing it means : the rich will be able to continue to fly while the poor, not being able to travel anymore because of the tax, will support the burden of climate adaptation. That's not justice. And that's the issue : climate change requires a global effort and if we want to have the masses to adapt, then we must have the elite to adapt equally.
- corney91 5y ago
  A frequent flyer tax would help here. Everyone gets a tax-free flight, then a low tax for the next one, and it keeps increasing for more flying. ~23 minutes in this podcast describes it and explains how it'd make a huge impact: https://www.cheerfulpodcast.com/rtbc-episodes/fair-miles https://www.cheerfulpodcast.com/rtbc-episodes/fair-miles The key stat is it'd be enough to reach the UK's target on carbon emissions from flying by 2050, at a cost of 0% for the first flight and 9% on the second (going up steeply from there). Of course, other countries may have different data but the principle should be the same.
- QasimK 5y ago
  The rich will support the burden of climate adaptation because the income from the tax can be used directly to help mitigate climate change. The vast majority of flights are taken by a small minority of people; they're taken by the richest. Take the United Kingdom as an example: 70% of all flights were taken by 15% of people [0]. It certainly isn't the poorest taking these flights. So taxing flights will have less direct impact on the poorest than one might think. Having said that, I think a charge on carbon is more fair than taxing flights directly. [0]: https://fullfact.org/economy/do-15-people-take-70-flights/ https://fullfact.org/economy/do-15-people-take-70-flights/

JCWasmx86 5y ago

I frankly don't think this would make sense. Imagine explaining the people of a country, that they aren't allowed to fly to e.g. Mallorca anymore. The acceptance would be somewhere between low and zero. Maybe private air travel in one country, e.g. from Munich to Berlin could be reduced, but not international flights without any resistance

gambiting 5y ago
They should be allowed to travel, of course - but the carbon tax on flights should mean that a flight to Mallorca is a £1000 per person each way.
de_keyboard 5y ago
This is why we are screwed. I think deep down majority knows the climate is changing, but they are not prepared to make any personal sacrifices.
- thevagrant 5y ago
  I know people making changes in their lives but it does appear hopeless right now. I drive much less and will look at solar panels eventually an electric car. I know some who already did move in that direction. I can plant some trees in my yard and make better choices with consumption however, what's to stop countries who still build coal power plants or coal still being mined? I despair. Many ppl are switching to electric cars thinking they did good, and yet they charge those same cars using energy supplied by burning fossil fuel. I'm not completely convinced solar panels or electric cars are produced cleanly. More needs to be done about that. How do we know for sure the energy used to make these are not adding to the problem. Even worse is that old petrol cars will usually be onsold to other countries, so emissions can't be falling? An individual can only do so much. Most people will bury their head in the sand. Those who take action may be pissing in the wind without realizing it.

mtekman 5y ago

Emissions from aviation contributes 3% to greenhouse gasses.

adrianN 5y ago
That's a fairy big chunk. Especially if you take into account that globally almost nobody can afford to fly.
aenario 5y ago
*historically contributed Will contribute 6-10% of yearly emission in the coming years
QasimK 5y ago
The emissions from aviation are increasing every year, the majority of flights are for holidays rather than business, and only a very small minority of people globally actually take flights. However, I belive the parent commenter was more pointing out the unfairness of picking and choosing what to ban rather than imposing a blanket charge on carbon. This seems to have been missed by most, even when considering that the parent is likely correct that flights have a greater, and increasingly greater, impact on climate change than bitcoin does.

_Algernon_ 5y ago

At least remove subsidies from all air travel, and add a carbon tax on top. Would make train much more competitive on many routes.