5 ms·

>I have lived as a nomad for the last nine years, taking 360 flights travelling over 1.5 million kilometers Good CHRIST what a carbon footprint.

SapporoChris 4y ago
https://www.edf.org/travel-footprint-calculator https://www.edf.org/travel-footprint-calculator I ran some numbers and the air travel looks seriously trivial compared to the average USA car driver.
- dag11 4y ago
  Do note that that calculator uses different units for air travel and car travel. It uses MtCO2e for air and kgCO2e for car travel. When I went to the calculator I saw the same as you, but it turns out that with a few dozen flights a year that's still a few times the carbon (once converted to kg) generated by my electric vehicle (presumably from avg power plant emissions).
  - SapporoChris 4y ago
    You are correct and I thank you for the correction. The grand total miscalculates and mislead me. Also, wow, air travel is stunningly carbon expensive.
- omniglottal 4y ago
  Given this data point about the average, it would be appropriate to establish, then, whether this individual has an above- or below-average footprint. This individual happens to have an extremely above-average usage of air travel, so it follows reason to not treat their usage as though "average" represents it accurately or could be used as a valid comparative reference.
el_nahual 4y ago
Legitimate question: what's the logical term for this argument? Those flights would have happened without Vitalik on them, so the carbon footpring is not really attributable to him. Other situations seem similar (ie, "why should I go vote? my vote doesn't really matter?") they really aren't: yes, I shouldn't throw trash in the park, because if we all did we'd be screwed--but we can't all fly every 2 weeks.
- kevinqi 4y ago
  Huh? Individual actions do matter. The fact that he got on these flights contributes to the overall demand on flights, and has certainly had an impact on how many flights need to exist. The argument that not all people can fly every 2 weeks is nonsensical.
  - el_nahual 4y ago
    Individual actions matter when they have some direct impact (even if small), or if they are a subset of a broader collective action. So me running my car matters. I'm directly putting CO2 in the air, even if my contribution is small. By "are a subset of a broader collective action" I mean as follows: if all members of a given class/collective stopped doing an act, would there be an impact? If all voters stopped voting, or if all families stopped flying, or if all grocery shoppers stopped buying meat, then yes, elections would break, and flights would decline, and meat would stop being sold. Even though my vote doesn't matter, and my family's ticket doesn't matter, and no, Purdue isn't going to stop factory farming chicked because I went vegan. In Vitalik's case--and I don't mean him specifically, but using him as a stand-in for a broader class of questions--, two things are true: 1. There's no direct result between him getting on a plane and the flight existing. His impact on flight demand isn't small, it's zero, because flights existing are non-linear. Those flights were going to be there anyway. 2. He is sui-generis. He's not a vacationing family or a a travelling salesman. There's no collective problem of "man, excentric genius crypto billionaires fly commercial too much." That just isn't a problem. If Vitalik, or all Vitaliks stopped flying, nothing would actually change. Whereas if all families stopped flying, or all business travellers—or whatever other class the vast, vast majority of flyers belong to—stopped travelling, then yes, there would be an impact. I guess you could say "ha! 'excentric genius crypto billionaires' isn't a collective! the right collective VB belongs to is 'people', and if all people stopped flying then there would certainly be an impact!". And that's certainly an argument, but I think both sides are arguable. And lastly, I'm not actually arguing that he should fly: I'm asking 'what do you call this logical problem, where we want to condemn someone for doing a thing that doesn't actually matter at all except symbolically? (Sorry for the ninja edits)
quickthrower2 4y ago
And then there is Ethereum!
pcmoney 4y ago
Every single consultant at BCG, McKinsey, Bain, Deloitte etc has him beat (maybe not during the pandemic) but they travel 40+ weeks of the year, out Monday back Thurs/Fri. 2x40x9=720 Compared to them Vitalik is a light flier.

SapporoChris 4y ago

https://www.edf.org/travel-footprint-calculator https://www.edf.org/travel-footprint-calculator I ran some numbers and the air travel looks seriously trivial compared to the average USA car driver.

dag11 4y ago
Do note that that calculator uses different units for air travel and car travel. It uses MtCO2e for air and kgCO2e for car travel. When I went to the calculator I saw the same as you, but it turns out that with a few dozen flights a year that's still a few times the carbon (once converted to kg) generated by my electric vehicle (presumably from avg power plant emissions).
- SapporoChris 4y ago
  You are correct and I thank you for the correction. The grand total miscalculates and mislead me. Also, wow, air travel is stunningly carbon expensive.
omniglottal 4y ago
Given this data point about the average, it would be appropriate to establish, then, whether this individual has an above- or below-average footprint. This individual happens to have an extremely above-average usage of air travel, so it follows reason to not treat their usage as though "average" represents it accurately or could be used as a valid comparative reference.

el_nahual 4y ago

Legitimate question: what's the logical term for this argument? Those flights would have happened without Vitalik on them, so the carbon footpring is not really attributable to him. Other situations seem similar (ie, "why should I go vote? my vote doesn't really matter?") they really aren't: yes, I shouldn't throw trash in the park, because if we all did we'd be screwed--but we can't all fly every 2 weeks.

kevinqi 4y ago
Huh? Individual actions do matter. The fact that he got on these flights contributes to the overall demand on flights, and has certainly had an impact on how many flights need to exist. The argument that not all people can fly every 2 weeks is nonsensical.
- el_nahual 4y ago
  Individual actions matter when they have some direct impact (even if small), or if they are a subset of a broader collective action. So me running my car matters. I'm directly putting CO2 in the air, even if my contribution is small. By "are a subset of a broader collective action" I mean as follows: if all members of a given class/collective stopped doing an act, would there be an impact? If all voters stopped voting, or if all families stopped flying, or if all grocery shoppers stopped buying meat, then yes, elections would break, and flights would decline, and meat would stop being sold. Even though my vote doesn't matter, and my family's ticket doesn't matter, and no, Purdue isn't going to stop factory farming chicked because I went vegan. In Vitalik's case--and I don't mean him specifically, but using him as a stand-in for a broader class of questions--, two things are true: 1. There's no direct result between him getting on a plane and the flight existing. His impact on flight demand isn't small, it's zero, because flights existing are non-linear. Those flights were going to be there anyway. 2. He is sui-generis. He's not a vacationing family or a a travelling salesman. There's no collective problem of "man, excentric genius crypto billionaires fly commercial too much." That just isn't a problem. If Vitalik, or all Vitaliks stopped flying, nothing would actually change. Whereas if all families stopped flying, or all business travellers—or whatever other class the vast, vast majority of flyers belong to—stopped travelling, then yes, there would be an impact. I guess you could say "ha! 'excentric genius crypto billionaires' isn't a collective! the right collective VB belongs to is 'people', and if all people stopped flying then there would certainly be an impact!". And that's certainly an argument, but I think both sides are arguable. And lastly, I'm not actually arguing that he should fly: I'm asking 'what do you call this logical problem, where we want to condemn someone for doing a thing that doesn't actually matter at all except symbolically? (Sorry for the ninja edits)

quickthrower2 4y ago

And then there is Ethereum!

pcmoney 4y ago

Every single consultant at BCG, McKinsey, Bain, Deloitte etc has him beat (maybe not during the pandemic) but they travel 40+ weeks of the year, out Monday back Thurs/Fri. 2x40x9=720 Compared to them Vitalik is a light flier.