4 ms·

I think the whole debate about air travel boils down to the different people which would be affected by a ban or increased prices/taxes. A lot of activists see

by V__ 5y ago

I think the whole debate about air travel boils down to the different people which would be affected by a ban or increased prices/taxes. A lot of activists see the (often) unnecessary flights taken by business travelers or celebrities, in addition to the entire private jet market. They, (probably) rightfully so, attack this behavior. People who travel maybe once a year or less, say for vacation or to visit their families, feel now attacked as well and fight back. This may be their only bit of luxury which they saved up for. I can totally understand such a reaction. As is regularly the case this develops into a flame-war and in the end more and more extreme viewpoints are taken, and the nuance gets lost.

hpoe 5y ago
I'll just say that my issue with it is that I see people especially politicians and celebrities get on my case about climate change and global warming and then see that they are jetting around all over the world to go to their conferences and appearances emitting more carbon emissions in a year than I will in my entire life and I start to question why I should pay a higher price on gas through taxes and have my energy limited and monitored when it is clear I am a much smaller part of the problem here compared to those that are advocating those ideas.
- jbay808 5y ago
  Presumably they pay those gas taxes too. They're just very rich, so they don't care. Maybe your issue is with wealth inequality rather than with carbon taxes per se?
mantas 5y ago
The problem is that nuance gets emotional. Then whoever has a better (or sadder) story to tell, wins. Yet pollution is pollution.
nicoburns 5y ago
It would be interesting to see a progressive taxation on flights. First flight of the year is tax free. Subsequent flights incur a charge at an increasing rate each flight taken.
- V__ 5y ago
  This sounds interesting. I just googled this and there seem to be some proposals: https://stay-grounded.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/progressive-ticket-tax-frequent-flyer-levy.pdf https://stay-grounded.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/progres...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
lm28469 5y ago
> who travel maybe once a year or less, say for vacation or to visit their families, feel now attacked as well and fight back. They should. France recently stated that we'd need to go from 11T to 2T of co2 per year per inhabitant by 2050. A classic short distance vacation flight (Paris -> Barcelona for example) is already ~0.5T > This may be their only bit of luxury which they saved up for. I can totally understand such a reaction. The thing is people get used to convenience and leisure, no matter the environmental cost. So yeah, if you didn't leave your home town to go work for a mega corp on the other side of the country/world to gain more money to consume more, maybe you wouldn't "need" to take a plane to see your family, &c. We all live like fucking kings, better than kings in fact. It's time to swallow our pride and take our responsibilities. The world won't function with 8B+ people taking the plane once a year to roast on a beach or ski for a week Of course people don't want to let go what they've been told is their goal in life: "consume and travel", the problem is that it simply doesn't scale
- alostpuppy 5y ago
  What about replacing short haul jets with turbo props? Apparently they are more efficient which I find very surprising.
  - lm28469 5y ago
    The rebound effect will take care of whatever progress you make in energy efficiency. As they say, it's not about the energy consumption of a single toaster, it's about the combined energy consumption of all the toasters. Plane engines are more efficient than ever but we also fly waaaaay much more than we used to, same for cars, &c. There aren't any ways to solve the problem without taking away personal convenience. At the end of the day you're still burning insane amount of non renewable energy for leisure.
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      The way to solve the problem without taking away convenience is to take yesterday’s atmospheric carbon, turn it into today’s jet fuel, and burn it tomorrow. Yea, that takes energy today, but is close to carbon neutral and I strongly suspect will happen in the next 50 years on a commercially viable scale.

by V__ 5y ago

hpoe 5y ago

I'll just say that my issue with it is that I see people especially politicians and celebrities get on my case about climate change and global warming and then see that they are jetting around all over the world to go to their conferences and appearances emitting more carbon emissions in a year than I will in my entire life and I start to question why I should pay a higher price on gas through taxes and have my energy limited and monitored when it is clear I am a much smaller part of the problem here compared to those that are advocating those ideas.

jbay808 5y ago
Presumably they pay those gas taxes too. They're just very rich, so they don't care. Maybe your issue is with wealth inequality rather than with carbon taxes per se?

mantas 5y ago

The problem is that nuance gets emotional. Then whoever has a better (or sadder) story to tell, wins. Yet pollution is pollution.

nicoburns 5y ago

It would be interesting to see a progressive taxation on flights. First flight of the year is tax free. Subsequent flights incur a charge at an increasing rate each flight taken.

V__ 5y ago
This sounds interesting. I just googled this and there seem to be some proposals: https://stay-grounded.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/progressive-ticket-tax-frequent-flyer-levy.pdf https://stay-grounded.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/progres...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

lm28469 5y ago

> who travel maybe once a year or less, say for vacation or to visit their families, feel now attacked as well and fight back. They should. France recently stated that we'd need to go from 11T to 2T of co2 per year per inhabitant by 2050. A classic short distance vacation flight (Paris -> Barcelona for example) is already ~0.5T > This may be their only bit of luxury which they saved up for. I can totally understand such a reaction. The thing is people get used to convenience and leisure, no matter the environmental cost. So yeah, if you didn't leave your home town to go work for a mega corp on the other side of the country/world to gain more money to consume more, maybe you wouldn't "need" to take a plane to see your family, &c. We all live like fucking kings, better than kings in fact. It's time to swallow our pride and take our responsibilities. The world won't function with 8B+ people taking the plane once a year to roast on a beach or ski for a week Of course people don't want to let go what they've been told is their goal in life: "consume and travel", the problem is that it simply doesn't scale

alostpuppy 5y ago
What about replacing short haul jets with turbo props? Apparently they are more efficient which I find very surprising.
- lm28469 5y ago
  The rebound effect will take care of whatever progress you make in energy efficiency. As they say, it's not about the energy consumption of a single toaster, it's about the combined energy consumption of all the toasters. Plane engines are more efficient than ever but we also fly waaaaay much more than we used to, same for cars, &c. There aren't any ways to solve the problem without taking away personal convenience. At the end of the day you're still burning insane amount of non renewable energy for leisure.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    The way to solve the problem without taking away convenience is to take yesterday’s atmospheric carbon, turn it into today’s jet fuel, and burn it tomorrow. Yea, that takes energy today, but is close to carbon neutral and I strongly suspect will happen in the next 50 years on a commercially viable scale.