3 ms·

> One of the most obvious impacts of a fight against climate change is that plane travel must get more expensive. I am a staunch defender of climate action and

> One of the most obvious impacts of a fight against climate change is that plane travel must get more expensive. I am a staunch defender of climate action and have made many lifestyle personal decisions on that topic but this whole lifestyle 'consumer effort' message is as flawed as OP's claims. We need to look at the 'bang for buck' data. Air travel is 1.9% of global emmissions. [0] As a comparison: - Energy use in Offices and Shops is 6.6% percent. - The steel industry emits 7.2% of global emissions. - Residential energy use is 10.9%. - Road transport is 16.2% of global emissions. You see where I am going with this. Before guilting people into catching a plane for Christmas why not: - Force steel industry into carbon scrubbing + emission mitigation R&D - Overcharge large commercial/office areas for lighting/AC energy - Overcharge large households using energy above a given quota per square foot - Exponentially progressive tax on personal vehicles above 2000cc. Notice that all of this is policy driven, not 'consumer effort'. [0] https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2020/09/Emissions-by-sector-%E2%80%93-pie-charts.png https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2020/09/Emissions-by-sect...

bryanlarsen 5y ago
That's why I phrased it as "plane travel must get more expensive". That's policy, not consumer choice.
- DoingIsLearning 5y ago
  Fair but air travel is a blip in global emissions despite the disproportonate media coverage.
  - bryanlarsen 5y ago
    2% of a massive number is a very big number, way too big to ignore.
    - DoingIsLearning 5y ago
      Agreed but the same can be said for the steel industry, which has had zero media coverage and alone accounts for 7% of a very big number, or more dramatically 350% of the emissions associated with freight and passenger air transport combined. My point is that there is a lot of low hanging fruit corporate emitters that should be curbed before targeting consumers.
      - bryanlarsen 4y ago
        We're out of time. We need to attack every sector, no exceptions. Increasing the price of steel will just trickle down to consumers. In the end, they're the ones that pay for everything.
namdnay 5y ago
> Air travel is 1.9% of global emmissions. 2% of a lot is still a lot, and keep in mind that these 2% of emissions are being emitted by a very very small group of people (relative to world population) > Overcharge large households using energy above a given quota per square foot That's a terrible metric, it just encourages bigger houses. Better just to make energy more expensive, and tax house size (which most countries already do) > Exponentially progressive tax on personal vehicles above 2000cc. Quite standard across the globe
triceratops 5y ago
Far more people use steel, work in offices or shops, live in a house, or use road transportation than have ever flown on a plane.

bryanlarsen 5y ago

That's why I phrased it as "plane travel must get more expensive". That's policy, not consumer choice.

DoingIsLearning 5y ago
Fair but air travel is a blip in global emissions despite the disproportonate media coverage.
- bryanlarsen 5y ago
  2% of a massive number is a very big number, way too big to ignore.
  - DoingIsLearning 5y ago
    Agreed but the same can be said for the steel industry, which has had zero media coverage and alone accounts for 7% of a very big number, or more dramatically 350% of the emissions associated with freight and passenger air transport combined. My point is that there is a lot of low hanging fruit corporate emitters that should be curbed before targeting consumers.
    - bryanlarsen 4y ago
      We're out of time. We need to attack every sector, no exceptions. Increasing the price of steel will just trickle down to consumers. In the end, they're the ones that pay for everything.

namdnay 5y ago

> Air travel is 1.9% of global emmissions. 2% of a lot is still a lot, and keep in mind that these 2% of emissions are being emitted by a very very small group of people (relative to world population) > Overcharge large households using energy above a given quota per square foot That's a terrible metric, it just encourages bigger houses. Better just to make energy more expensive, and tax house size (which most countries already do) > Exponentially progressive tax on personal vehicles above 2000cc. Quite standard across the globe

triceratops 5y ago

Far more people use steel, work in offices or shops, live in a house, or use road transportation than have ever flown on a plane.