4 ms·

I don't know about the US, but in the EU, aviation only contributes 3% (that is not a typo. Three percent) of the total greenhouse gas emissions (measured just

I don't know about the US, but in the EU, aviation only contributes 3% (that is not a typo. Three percent) of the total greenhouse gas emissions (measured just before corona--so there was a shitload of aviation going on). The major greenhouse gas emitters are electricity production (30% - mostly gas generators!), road transport (20%), industry (20%). Source: European Environment Agency So I wouldn't worry much about the climate impact of flying.

Bad_CRC 4y ago
so that 3% of aviation is part of the 20% of transport or that transport is for cars?
- dannymi 4y ago
  "Transport" is for road transport. Sorry. I edited it now to make it more clear. https://www.easa.europa.eu/eaer/system/files/usr_uploaded/219473_EASA_EAER_2019_WEB_LOW-RES.pdf https://www.easa.europa.eu/eaer/system/files/usr_uploaded/21... section 7.3 for the citation on aviation (gah, is the europa.eu website slow).
whimsicalism 4y ago
HN, where marginal thinking comes to die.
- smallpipe 4y ago
  Or even thinking in his case...
cma 4y ago
Take the relevant population class of people that can afford to fly frequently, and it is a much larger % of emissions.
- samatman 4y ago
  The climate doesn't care who benefits from emissions, only how much is emitted. Air travel is much harder to do without fossil fuels than ground transport or electrical generation, and is essential to civilization on the basis of cargo alone. It's simply not an efficient target for change right now.
  - morsch 4y ago
    Some air travel may be essential to civilization, most of it isn't. We don't really have a way to determine which is which on a societal level. The best we can do is price in the externalities (and deal with income disparity, but that's an orthogonal issue).
    - samatman 4y ago
      Air travel itself is essential, it's one of the defining abilities of the modern world and can't just be shut off. It would be corrosive to try and separate the essential from the frivolous, I agree with that. I favor carbon taxes that dig an industries grave for it: such as taxing coal to build nuclear, wind, solar. That's not feasible with air travel yet, which leaves a consumption tax, those are regressive.
      - morsch 4y ago
        You can tax air travel to encourage travel by other means where applicable, or alternatives for work trips, or local tourism, or slow tourism, all kinds of things. Air travel itself may be defining and I don't envision getting rid of it; but the weekend trip to Vegas or Mallorca or Delhi is a defining feature of the present that is not sustainable in the future. Taxing dirty electricity generation is regressive taxation, too; like I said, it's an original issue. A first step would be to pay out all the generated carbon taxes on a per capita basis.
        toma_caliente 4y ago
        > You can tax air travel to encourage travel by other means where applicable. This would never happen in America because it would require Americans addressing their views on transit and addressing their pitiful consumer rail or even consumer bus industries.
b3morales 4y ago
Still, if that's an easier segment than the others to reduce in absolute terms (and without the expenditure just hopping to another column) it shouldn't be off the table.
morsch 4y ago
It's a lot more of your personal CO2 budget if you're one of the persons doing the flying. Probably the majority if you're doing intercontinental flights every year.
Aunche 4y ago
Aviation contributes to 3% of EU emissions because most Europeans don't take 360 flights in 9 years, whereas they do use electricity, cars/busses, and products of industry.
- eyko 4y ago
  Most americans also don't take 40 flights per year on average.
uoaei 4y ago
As a singular factor, cutting down on carbon emissions that are caused via flying is a better leverage point than many other interventions to slowing climate change precisely because the consumption is so high per user. For road transport, industry, and electricity production, those provide benefit for orders of magnitude more people, and individual actors' choices have less impact. It is probably wiser to judge based on emissions per user.
KptMarchewa 4y ago
Because average person in EU flies just under once per year, while traveling by car maybe few times a week. That flight (well, cargo too) generates that 3% of emissions.

Bad_CRC 4y ago

so that 3% of aviation is part of the 20% of transport or that transport is for cars?

dannymi 4y ago
"Transport" is for road transport. Sorry. I edited it now to make it more clear. https://www.easa.europa.eu/eaer/system/files/usr_uploaded/219473_EASA_EAER_2019_WEB_LOW-RES.pdf https://www.easa.europa.eu/eaer/system/files/usr_uploaded/21... section 7.3 for the citation on aviation (gah, is the europa.eu website slow).

whimsicalism 4y ago

HN, where marginal thinking comes to die.

smallpipe 4y ago
Or even thinking in his case...

cma 4y ago

Take the relevant population class of people that can afford to fly frequently, and it is a much larger % of emissions.

samatman 4y ago
The climate doesn't care who benefits from emissions, only how much is emitted. Air travel is much harder to do without fossil fuels than ground transport or electrical generation, and is essential to civilization on the basis of cargo alone. It's simply not an efficient target for change right now.
- morsch 4y ago
  Some air travel may be essential to civilization, most of it isn't. We don't really have a way to determine which is which on a societal level. The best we can do is price in the externalities (and deal with income disparity, but that's an orthogonal issue).
  - samatman 4y ago
    Air travel itself is essential, it's one of the defining abilities of the modern world and can't just be shut off. It would be corrosive to try and separate the essential from the frivolous, I agree with that. I favor carbon taxes that dig an industries grave for it: such as taxing coal to build nuclear, wind, solar. That's not feasible with air travel yet, which leaves a consumption tax, those are regressive.
    - morsch 4y ago
      You can tax air travel to encourage travel by other means where applicable, or alternatives for work trips, or local tourism, or slow tourism, all kinds of things. Air travel itself may be defining and I don't envision getting rid of it; but the weekend trip to Vegas or Mallorca or Delhi is a defining feature of the present that is not sustainable in the future. Taxing dirty electricity generation is regressive taxation, too; like I said, it's an original issue. A first step would be to pay out all the generated carbon taxes on a per capita basis.
      - toma_caliente 4y ago
        > You can tax air travel to encourage travel by other means where applicable. This would never happen in America because it would require Americans addressing their views on transit and addressing their pitiful consumer rail or even consumer bus industries.

b3morales 4y ago

Still, if that's an easier segment than the others to reduce in absolute terms (and without the expenditure just hopping to another column) it shouldn't be off the table.

morsch 4y ago

It's a lot more of your personal CO2 budget if you're one of the persons doing the flying. Probably the majority if you're doing intercontinental flights every year.

Aunche 4y ago

Aviation contributes to 3% of EU emissions because most Europeans don't take 360 flights in 9 years, whereas they do use electricity, cars/busses, and products of industry.

eyko 4y ago
Most americans also don't take 40 flights per year on average.

uoaei 4y ago

As a singular factor, cutting down on carbon emissions that are caused via flying is a better leverage point than many other interventions to slowing climate change precisely because the consumption is so high per user. For road transport, industry, and electricity production, those provide benefit for orders of magnitude more people, and individual actors' choices have less impact. It is probably wiser to judge based on emissions per user.

KptMarchewa 4y ago

Because average person in EU flies just under once per year, while traveling by car maybe few times a week. That flight (well, cargo too) generates that 3% of emissions.