5 ms·

Nope, Musk and Bezos should fly less recreational rockets first. After they stop and abandon their scale up plans, then I will stop visiting my overseas family.

arcticbull 5y ago
That's literally among the least useful or relevant things we could do to stop climate change. "We should all stop flying only if Steve puts out the campfire in his back yard" - ok, but that one of these things dwarfs the other. There will always be people doing things they shouldn't - or that you think they shouldn't - but that cannot stop you from making good decisions. I'm not saying stop visiting your family, just that this line of thinking is completely counterproductive.
- monocasa 5y ago
  It's not their individual flights that are the problem, it's starting a business unit that burns an average lifetime's worth of carbon for a couple day recreational trip that's the problem. It's not a "campfire".
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > it's starting a business unit that burns an average lifetime's worth of carbon for a couple day recreational trip that's the problem Can’t think of many better ways to kill political support for real climate change legislation than advocating ceding our technological leadership in space technology like this.
    - whatever1 5y ago
      So you just presented the priorities of the US. Military and space domination. Climate is way down the in list of priorities. Should we just stop pretending?
      - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
        > Should we just stop pretending? Who claims climate change is the greatest policy concern to the U.S. or any of the world's regional powers? It's plain as day that isn't the case. That's the problem. That's why nipping at small fry, like plane travel and rockets, is stupid. It deploys limited political capital to a small problem. That distracts from the bigger stuff we need to accomplish, e.g. carbon taxes, electrifying transportation and greening primary production.
        monocasa 5y ago
        A lot of people claim that. https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/greatest-threat-global-security-climate-change-not-merely-environmental-problem https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/greatest-threat-glob...
    - monocasa 5y ago
      I'm not sure how "look at stopping recreational flights if we're getting to the point of asking average people to take less airliner flights", is "ceding our technological leadership in space technology".
      - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
        Sorry, I was responding to advocating against e.g. SpaceX and Blue Origin. Strongly believe we need a carbon tax, which would reduce air travel organically.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    The ride up emitted 82.5T of CO2 per person. A single Bitcoin transaction emits 1T of CO2. An average American home emits 5T of CO2 per year. One round-trip flight from New York to London emits 1T of CO2 per person, and seats about 300 people. So for perspective, it produces about as much CO2 to fly 4 people to space as a 777 from New York to London round-trip. Now there are 233 daily flights from New York to London - or 85,000 per year. And that's just New York to London. There have been 18 Blue Origin launches. It's a campfire. A pricy luxury that a few folks take advantage of. Should everyone do it? No. Can everyone do it? No. A carbon tax will sort all this out. But saying we shouldn't address the 85,000 flights from NYC to LHR per year because Bezos blasted off a few times is a really poor way of framing the conversation.
    - monocasa 5y ago
      I question your numbers because New Shepard doesn't use carbon based fuel at all. It's replacement, New Glenn, is the problem here.
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        I see, I was using this [1] although you are of course right that it's a liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen rocket. While it's not carbon free to obtain those, but the numbers are probably quite a bit lower for New Shepard. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/19/billionaires-space-tourism-environment-emissions https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/19/billionaires...
      - whatever1 5y ago
        Hydrogen today is coming mostly as a by product of extraction & refining fossil fuels. https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-resources https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-resources
- chimeracoder 5y ago
  > "We should all stop flying only if Steve puts out the campfire in his back yard" - ok, but that one of these things dwarfs the other. The carbon footprint of a single commercial space flight is orders of magnitude higher - in fact, it's higher than the entire lifetime carbon footprint of the median human being, and approximately equivalent to the lifetime carbon footprint of the average American. One doesn't have to depend on the other, but this comparison is wrong because it ignores the fact that commercial space travel is, in fact, one of the single most environmentally-damaging activities imaginable.
  - V__ 5y ago
    I think the poster above didn't try to say that commercial space travel is good. Just that the attitude of "I won't change if someone else doesn't" is not productive. Sure a single space flight can't compare to a single normal flight but if enough people restrict them self a bit it would make a big dent.
    - whatever1 5y ago
      You make all of this effort so that Musk can burn it in 20’?
      - V__ 5y ago
        That's not the point neither I nor the poster above was making at all.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    I just looked it up. [edit](An average rocket)[1] emits 300T of CO2 on the round-trip. That's the same as a 777 flying from NYC to LHR round-trip. Except there have been 18 Blue Origin launches and there's 85,000 annual round trips from NYC to LHR alone. It's certainly inefficient and not individually good for the planet, but it's a pricy luxury few can afford, and one that can be easily managed via carbon tax. Refusing to address the 85,000 annual round-trips on just the NYC-LHR corridor because one rich guy ran 18 launches with the same carbon footprint, I mean, I'm sure he's flown his private jet over the Atlantic more than 18 times. Remember, per person, the Blue Origin launch produces as much CO2 as 85 Bitcoin transactions. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/19/billionaires-space-tourism-environment-emissions https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/19/billionaires...
- whatever1 5y ago
  Policy needs to be consistent to work. You cannot on one hand legislate to cut pennies worth of emissions from individuals making them poorer and more miserable and then on the other hand allow for an orders of magnitude more waste for a handful of selected ones, specially when their mission is to scale up the waste for recreation.
- NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
  Just as a matter of interest: the CO2 equivalent contributions to total greenhouse gas production from air travel and wood-fires for cooking are about the same (about 2%).
bryanlarsen 5y ago
Bezos' spaceship is zero-carbon (as long as they use green hydrogen rather hydrogen steam reformed from natural gas) and Musk has promised to make his zero-carbon as well.
- monocasa 5y ago
  Blue Origin's new engine is liquid methane.
  - bryanlarsen 5y ago
    The OP was talking about passenger flights, which means the hydrogen New Shepard, not the methane New Glenn.
    - monocasa 5y ago
      New Glenn is aiming to be human rated. https://twitter.com/erdayastronaut/status/1126586983051141125 https://twitter.com/erdayastronaut/status/112658698305114112...
      - bryanlarsen 5y ago
        When Starship goes zero carbon, hopefully New Glenn feels the pressure and followed.
        monocasa 5y ago
        I'll believe Musk's plans when they happen.

arcticbull 5y ago

That's literally among the least useful or relevant things we could do to stop climate change. "We should all stop flying only if Steve puts out the campfire in his back yard" - ok, but that one of these things dwarfs the other. There will always be people doing things they shouldn't - or that you think they shouldn't - but that cannot stop you from making good decisions. I'm not saying stop visiting your family, just that this line of thinking is completely counterproductive.

monocasa 5y ago
It's not their individual flights that are the problem, it's starting a business unit that burns an average lifetime's worth of carbon for a couple day recreational trip that's the problem. It's not a "campfire".
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > it's starting a business unit that burns an average lifetime's worth of carbon for a couple day recreational trip that's the problem Can’t think of many better ways to kill political support for real climate change legislation than advocating ceding our technological leadership in space technology like this.
  - whatever1 5y ago
    So you just presented the priorities of the US. Military and space domination. Climate is way down the in list of priorities. Should we just stop pretending?
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > Should we just stop pretending? Who claims climate change is the greatest policy concern to the U.S. or any of the world's regional powers? It's plain as day that isn't the case. That's the problem. That's why nipping at small fry, like plane travel and rockets, is stupid. It deploys limited political capital to a small problem. That distracts from the bigger stuff we need to accomplish, e.g. carbon taxes, electrifying transportation and greening primary production.
      - monocasa 5y ago
        A lot of people claim that. https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/greatest-threat-global-security-climate-change-not-merely-environmental-problem https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/greatest-threat-glob...
  - monocasa 5y ago
    I'm not sure how "look at stopping recreational flights if we're getting to the point of asking average people to take less airliner flights", is "ceding our technological leadership in space technology".
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      Sorry, I was responding to advocating against e.g. SpaceX and Blue Origin. Strongly believe we need a carbon tax, which would reduce air travel organically.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  The ride up emitted 82.5T of CO2 per person. A single Bitcoin transaction emits 1T of CO2. An average American home emits 5T of CO2 per year. One round-trip flight from New York to London emits 1T of CO2 per person, and seats about 300 people. So for perspective, it produces about as much CO2 to fly 4 people to space as a 777 from New York to London round-trip. Now there are 233 daily flights from New York to London - or 85,000 per year. And that's just New York to London. There have been 18 Blue Origin launches. It's a campfire. A pricy luxury that a few folks take advantage of. Should everyone do it? No. Can everyone do it? No. A carbon tax will sort all this out. But saying we shouldn't address the 85,000 flights from NYC to LHR per year because Bezos blasted off a few times is a really poor way of framing the conversation.
  - monocasa 5y ago
    I question your numbers because New Shepard doesn't use carbon based fuel at all. It's replacement, New Glenn, is the problem here.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      I see, I was using this [1] although you are of course right that it's a liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen rocket. While it's not carbon free to obtain those, but the numbers are probably quite a bit lower for New Shepard. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/19/billionaires-space-tourism-environment-emissions https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/19/billionaires...
    - whatever1 5y ago
      Hydrogen today is coming mostly as a by product of extraction & refining fossil fuels. https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-resources https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-resources
chimeracoder 5y ago
> "We should all stop flying only if Steve puts out the campfire in his back yard" - ok, but that one of these things dwarfs the other. The carbon footprint of a single commercial space flight is orders of magnitude higher - in fact, it's higher than the entire lifetime carbon footprint of the median human being, and approximately equivalent to the lifetime carbon footprint of the average American. One doesn't have to depend on the other, but this comparison is wrong because it ignores the fact that commercial space travel is, in fact, one of the single most environmentally-damaging activities imaginable.
- V__ 5y ago
  I think the poster above didn't try to say that commercial space travel is good. Just that the attitude of "I won't change if someone else doesn't" is not productive. Sure a single space flight can't compare to a single normal flight but if enough people restrict them self a bit it would make a big dent.
  - whatever1 5y ago
    You make all of this effort so that Musk can burn it in 20’?
    - V__ 5y ago
      That's not the point neither I nor the poster above was making at all.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  I just looked it up. [edit](An average rocket)[1] emits 300T of CO2 on the round-trip. That's the same as a 777 flying from NYC to LHR round-trip. Except there have been 18 Blue Origin launches and there's 85,000 annual round trips from NYC to LHR alone. It's certainly inefficient and not individually good for the planet, but it's a pricy luxury few can afford, and one that can be easily managed via carbon tax. Refusing to address the 85,000 annual round-trips on just the NYC-LHR corridor because one rich guy ran 18 launches with the same carbon footprint, I mean, I'm sure he's flown his private jet over the Atlantic more than 18 times. Remember, per person, the Blue Origin launch produces as much CO2 as 85 Bitcoin transactions. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/19/billionaires-space-tourism-environment-emissions https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/19/billionaires...
whatever1 5y ago
Policy needs to be consistent to work. You cannot on one hand legislate to cut pennies worth of emissions from individuals making them poorer and more miserable and then on the other hand allow for an orders of magnitude more waste for a handful of selected ones, specially when their mission is to scale up the waste for recreation.
NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
Just as a matter of interest: the CO2 equivalent contributions to total greenhouse gas production from air travel and wood-fires for cooking are about the same (about 2%).

bryanlarsen 5y ago

Bezos' spaceship is zero-carbon (as long as they use green hydrogen rather hydrogen steam reformed from natural gas) and Musk has promised to make his zero-carbon as well.

monocasa 5y ago
Blue Origin's new engine is liquid methane.
- bryanlarsen 5y ago
  The OP was talking about passenger flights, which means the hydrogen New Shepard, not the methane New Glenn.
  - monocasa 5y ago
    New Glenn is aiming to be human rated. https://twitter.com/erdayastronaut/status/1126586983051141125 https://twitter.com/erdayastronaut/status/112658698305114112...
    - bryanlarsen 5y ago
      When Starship goes zero carbon, hopefully New Glenn feels the pressure and followed.
      - monocasa 5y ago
        I'll believe Musk's plans when they happen.