4 ms·

Here's an example of what we're up against:- https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/oct/25/spanx-chief-gives-employees-first-class-plane-tickets-10000 https:

Here's an example of what we're up against:- https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/oct/25/spanx-chief-gives-employees-first-class-plane-tickets-10000 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/oct/25/spanx-chief-... > The chief executive and founder of the shapewear company Spanx has surprised employees with two first-class plane tickets and $10,000 each. The idea that massive carbon emissions are a good thing has to change. I don't think it's going to.

LurkingPenguin 5y ago
500 people going round-trip to any destination they want one time is a drop in the bucket. Pre-pandemic, do you have any idea how many business travelers would hop on planes every single day, sometimes to travel just a few hundred miles (i.e. SFO to LAX)?
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  > sometimes to travel just a few hundred miles (i.e. SFO to LAX)? Nothing wrong with flying from LA to SF. Driving 400 miles gets old pretty quick. Depending on how heavy your foot is, that's ~6 hours of driving, and along one of the most boring stretches of road (I-5) imaginable. You will also need to stop and take breaks. And if you take PCH, it's 8 hours of winding road. Do that once for fun, but not twice. In terms of cost, a one way ticket LA to SF or vice-versa is $39. You can get those at short notice. Assuming 30 mpg at whatever high speed you will be traveling, driving the 400 miles will cost you ~13 gallons, so if gas is $3 per gallon, there's no price difference between flying and driving. And in CA, gas is $4.50 now, so you'd be crazy to drive, as that trip will cost you $60 just in terms of gas. Your time is also valuable. If you get to the airport an a hour head, then it's 1 hour at airport, 1 hour flight, 30 min getting out of plane and picking up luggage. Let's say at most 3 hours travel time, enter SFO to exit LAX. You can buy a business class ticket for $80. Do yourself a favor and get the business class seat and watch a movie or take a nap. You will be first to board and exit, saving time. If you value safety, flying is much safer.
  - crubier 5y ago
    Some figures to keep in mind, since CO2 is absent from your calculations: Flying from SFO to LAX and back costs 0.2 Tons of CO2. That’s more than a month of your CO2 quota if we want to limit climate change to +1.5C. CO2 budget should be 2 Tons per year to reach that goal. Currently, emissions are 15 Tons per year per capita in the US.
    - rsj_hn 5y ago
      > That’s more than a month of your CO2 quota if we want to limit climate change to +1.5C. Fortunately, I don't have a CO2 quota, nor are we going to meet any of these targets, nor is there popular support for imposing quotas. But if you prefer to drive to LA, that's perfectly fine with me.
      - crubier 5y ago
        You won’t have a CO2 quota don’t worry, your little comfort will be fine. But easy oil will run out eventually anyway. Your children (if you have any) will live on an overheating planet, with mass climate migrations, and very high priced oil, even for things as basic as fertilizers.
        dTal 5y ago
        I fear that waiting until oil is too expensive to use, is effectively waiting until all the oil has been dug up and put in the atmosphere. It's the non-answer. That way lies climate disaster. I am disturbed by the shoulder-shrugging attitude to mass environmental devastation.
        rsj_hn 5y ago
        I am disturbed by the hysteria and alarmism. People have been predicting "climate disaster" for 40 years now, along with population disaster, and many other disasters. I'm not onboard with this extremism, and neither is the majority of the population, and most important for you, neither is China, which is opening 120 new coal plants just this year. Yet for some reason I'm supposed to be terrified of flying from SFO to LAX and pretend that there is some sort of existential crisis. But don't worry, this will allow you to keep warning of collapse, just around the corner, for the next forty years as well. And the forty after that.
- tuatoru 5y ago
  Read it again: the idea that a present that emits carbon is a good thing is what needs to change. And yes, I do know how many plane trips there were. That doesn't make it right, just like that fact that a lot of people smoke doesn't make that right.
  - LurkingPenguin 5y ago
    > the idea that a present that emits carbon is a good thing is what needs to change. There are very few human activities that don't directly or indirectly "emit carbon". Like it or not, civilization is not going back to the horse and buggy. At least willingly.

LurkingPenguin 5y ago

500 people going round-trip to any destination they want one time is a drop in the bucket. Pre-pandemic, do you have any idea how many business travelers would hop on planes every single day, sometimes to travel just a few hundred miles (i.e. SFO to LAX)?

rsj_hn 5y ago
> sometimes to travel just a few hundred miles (i.e. SFO to LAX)? Nothing wrong with flying from LA to SF. Driving 400 miles gets old pretty quick. Depending on how heavy your foot is, that's ~6 hours of driving, and along one of the most boring stretches of road (I-5) imaginable. You will also need to stop and take breaks. And if you take PCH, it's 8 hours of winding road. Do that once for fun, but not twice. In terms of cost, a one way ticket LA to SF or vice-versa is $39. You can get those at short notice. Assuming 30 mpg at whatever high speed you will be traveling, driving the 400 miles will cost you ~13 gallons, so if gas is $3 per gallon, there's no price difference between flying and driving. And in CA, gas is $4.50 now, so you'd be crazy to drive, as that trip will cost you $60 just in terms of gas. Your time is also valuable. If you get to the airport an a hour head, then it's 1 hour at airport, 1 hour flight, 30 min getting out of plane and picking up luggage. Let's say at most 3 hours travel time, enter SFO to exit LAX. You can buy a business class ticket for $80. Do yourself a favor and get the business class seat and watch a movie or take a nap. You will be first to board and exit, saving time. If you value safety, flying is much safer.
- crubier 5y ago
  Some figures to keep in mind, since CO2 is absent from your calculations: Flying from SFO to LAX and back costs 0.2 Tons of CO2. That’s more than a month of your CO2 quota if we want to limit climate change to +1.5C. CO2 budget should be 2 Tons per year to reach that goal. Currently, emissions are 15 Tons per year per capita in the US.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    > That’s more than a month of your CO2 quota if we want to limit climate change to +1.5C. Fortunately, I don't have a CO2 quota, nor are we going to meet any of these targets, nor is there popular support for imposing quotas. But if you prefer to drive to LA, that's perfectly fine with me.
    - crubier 5y ago
      You won’t have a CO2 quota don’t worry, your little comfort will be fine. But easy oil will run out eventually anyway. Your children (if you have any) will live on an overheating planet, with mass climate migrations, and very high priced oil, even for things as basic as fertilizers.
      - dTal 5y ago
        I fear that waiting until oil is too expensive to use, is effectively waiting until all the oil has been dug up and put in the atmosphere. It's the non-answer. That way lies climate disaster. I am disturbed by the shoulder-shrugging attitude to mass environmental devastation.
        rsj_hn 5y ago
        I am disturbed by the hysteria and alarmism. People have been predicting "climate disaster" for 40 years now, along with population disaster, and many other disasters. I'm not onboard with this extremism, and neither is the majority of the population, and most important for you, neither is China, which is opening 120 new coal plants just this year. Yet for some reason I'm supposed to be terrified of flying from SFO to LAX and pretend that there is some sort of existential crisis. But don't worry, this will allow you to keep warning of collapse, just around the corner, for the next forty years as well. And the forty after that.
tuatoru 5y ago
Read it again: the idea that a present that emits carbon is a good thing is what needs to change. And yes, I do know how many plane trips there were. That doesn't make it right, just like that fact that a lot of people smoke doesn't make that right.
- LurkingPenguin 5y ago
  > the idea that a present that emits carbon is a good thing is what needs to change. There are very few human activities that don't directly or indirectly "emit carbon". Like it or not, civilization is not going back to the horse and buggy. At least willingly.