5 ms·

Most of the people in the world aka energy consumers are not wealthy, if the price doesn't impact the "poor" you can't make people consume less really.

fsslrisrchr 5y ago
The poor, in democracy, will vote for their interests. So, unless you abandon democracy, you won't get the poor to vote carbon taxes. How about we start by putting a $1000/flight tax? Seems only fair that the rich, mobile class start reducing their emissions. After all, it's actually the upper classes that consume (by far) energy in gross terms.
- nivenkos 5y ago
  This just punishes those with family abroad and reduces economic mobility. It'd be hard to tax private jets, so much like the EU has just done with fuel duty, they end up exempting the super-rich and hammering the working class with more taxes.
  - fsslrisrchr 5y ago
    So it punishes me that whose closest family is 500 km away. The next closest is 1000 km away and then half way across the world. A $100/flight tax for a family of 5 would bug me, but wouldn't stop me from flying. $1000/flight certainly would give me a pause. My proposal is against my own interests.
- mint2 5y ago
  It’s actually more efficient for a person to fly 400mi in a reasonably full plain than it is to drive solo in an average American car
  - fsslrisrchr 5y ago
    While true, this is a very dishonest view of the environmental impact of flying. At best, assuming a full flight and a long route, say >500 mi, (taking off is a large, fixed, cost) an aircraft gets about 100 passenger miles per gallon. Few ppl drive >100 mi by themselves. When I drive >300 mi, it's in a car full of five ppl. My big, mean, SUV gets 28 mpg * 5 passengers = 140 passenger miles/gallon. Or better than any fully laden airplane. The car is also fully laden, and I'm considering adding a hitch so I can attach a tray for more cargo (putting cargo on your roof kills your mpg) Also, I think the pandemic has demonstrated that most flying is discretionary. Stressed out management class types unwinding in a paradise island thousands of miles away. Or traveling to a conference. Very few passengers are a specialist that needs to be onsite. Add to that that flying necessarily means long distance runs, and it enables long distance travel. Meaning flying has enabled the transformation of society from a local, regional society, into a global one. One that consumes far more resources (for example, flying half way across the world to visit grandparents because your job is no longer available in your home country)
elevaet 5y ago
The worlds poorest use far less energy than the worlds wealthiest. If we want a world where the worlds poorest can rise, energy policy needs to be softer on the poor, and the richest will have to pay more of the cost. The rich countries rose to the top on the back of historically cheap energy, to some extent. "The average US citizen still consumes more than ten times the energy of the average Indian, 4-5 times that of a Brazilian, and three times more than China" https://ourworldindata.org/energy-access#per-capita-energy-consumption-varies-more-than-10-fold-across-the-world https://ourworldindata.org/energy-access#per-capita-energy-c...
- Dma54rhs 5y ago
  Of course individually they consume less, when talking about the mass and big numbers, ultra wealthy are a statistical anomaly.
  - rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
    Most of the poor energy footprint is not optional: commuting (most can't live in expensive districts), heating a single small apartment, basic food, buy a few leisure things. Almost all the wealthy footprint is discretionary: air travel, luxury purchase, package holidays... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-020-0579-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-020-0579-8 Your "statistical anomaly" is not anecdotal, it's the very symbol of a broken system that was designed not to care. In this situation, I cannot expect the non-wealthy to make big efforts to reduce their consumption while the ultra rich continues to casually destroy the environment. We're letting the rich take almost all the profit but we ask the poor to work harder only because they're more numerous. This can only end with violence or a catastrophe, IMHO.
    - Dma54rhs 5y ago
      Right, but then what are options? Everything hits the poor I agree but if you don't want to then we will just let the global warming to run rampant and watch?
  - elevaet 5y ago
paganel 5y ago
So they should market those measures for what they really are, i.e. regressive taxes/measures that, by definition, have a bigger impact on the poor than on the wealthy. The “let’s save the planet!” discourse controlled by the wealthy fails to mention that (with few exceptions, lately).

fsslrisrchr 5y ago

The poor, in democracy, will vote for their interests. So, unless you abandon democracy, you won't get the poor to vote carbon taxes. How about we start by putting a $1000/flight tax? Seems only fair that the rich, mobile class start reducing their emissions. After all, it's actually the upper classes that consume (by far) energy in gross terms.

nivenkos 5y ago
This just punishes those with family abroad and reduces economic mobility. It'd be hard to tax private jets, so much like the EU has just done with fuel duty, they end up exempting the super-rich and hammering the working class with more taxes.
- fsslrisrchr 5y ago
  So it punishes me that whose closest family is 500 km away. The next closest is 1000 km away and then half way across the world. A $100/flight tax for a family of 5 would bug me, but wouldn't stop me from flying. $1000/flight certainly would give me a pause. My proposal is against my own interests.
mint2 5y ago
It’s actually more efficient for a person to fly 400mi in a reasonably full plain than it is to drive solo in an average American car
- fsslrisrchr 5y ago
  While true, this is a very dishonest view of the environmental impact of flying. At best, assuming a full flight and a long route, say >500 mi, (taking off is a large, fixed, cost) an aircraft gets about 100 passenger miles per gallon. Few ppl drive >100 mi by themselves. When I drive >300 mi, it's in a car full of five ppl. My big, mean, SUV gets 28 mpg * 5 passengers = 140 passenger miles/gallon. Or better than any fully laden airplane. The car is also fully laden, and I'm considering adding a hitch so I can attach a tray for more cargo (putting cargo on your roof kills your mpg) Also, I think the pandemic has demonstrated that most flying is discretionary. Stressed out management class types unwinding in a paradise island thousands of miles away. Or traveling to a conference. Very few passengers are a specialist that needs to be onsite. Add to that that flying necessarily means long distance runs, and it enables long distance travel. Meaning flying has enabled the transformation of society from a local, regional society, into a global one. One that consumes far more resources (for example, flying half way across the world to visit grandparents because your job is no longer available in your home country)

elevaet 5y ago

The worlds poorest use far less energy than the worlds wealthiest. If we want a world where the worlds poorest can rise, energy policy needs to be softer on the poor, and the richest will have to pay more of the cost. The rich countries rose to the top on the back of historically cheap energy, to some extent. "The average US citizen still consumes more than ten times the energy of the average Indian, 4-5 times that of a Brazilian, and three times more than China" https://ourworldindata.org/energy-access#per-capita-energy-consumption-varies-more-than-10-fold-across-the-world https://ourworldindata.org/energy-access#per-capita-energy-c...

Dma54rhs 5y ago
Of course individually they consume less, when talking about the mass and big numbers, ultra wealthy are a statistical anomaly.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
  Most of the poor energy footprint is not optional: commuting (most can't live in expensive districts), heating a single small apartment, basic food, buy a few leisure things. Almost all the wealthy footprint is discretionary: air travel, luxury purchase, package holidays... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-020-0579-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-020-0579-8 Your "statistical anomaly" is not anecdotal, it's the very symbol of a broken system that was designed not to care. In this situation, I cannot expect the non-wealthy to make big efforts to reduce their consumption while the ultra rich continues to casually destroy the environment. We're letting the rich take almost all the profit but we ask the poor to work harder only because they're more numerous. This can only end with violence or a catastrophe, IMHO.
  - Dma54rhs 5y ago
    Right, but then what are options? Everything hits the poor I agree but if you don't want to then we will just let the global warming to run rampant and watch?
- elevaet 5y ago

paganel 5y ago

So they should market those measures for what they really are, i.e. regressive taxes/measures that, by definition, have a bigger impact on the poor than on the wealthy. The “let’s save the planet!” discourse controlled by the wealthy fails to mention that (with few exceptions, lately).