3 ms·

That’s a very misleading way of looking at the problem. There are no good place to start before tackling the other places. We have to start everywhere and cut

That’s a very misleading way of looking at the problem. There are no good place to start before tackling the other places. We have to start everywhere and cut everywhere. You can’t shield your life style behind the excuse that some things are worst. 2% is also a big number. Cleaner planes are on the way but trying to shift how you travel towards cleaner mean of transport is everyone responsibility. So is helping the poor countries currently electrifying which constitute the majority of new coal plants being built have access to cleaner sources of power.

melling 4y ago
That’s not correct. There are large emission issues that would should tackle first. How we generate electricity is one of them. Carl Sagan warned us almost 40 years ago that coal would be a future problem. https://youtu.be/Wp-WiNXH6hI https://youtu.be/Wp-WiNXH6hI That was clearly a large problem that could have been addressed, and still needs to be ASAP. Coal-fired power stations emit over 10 Gt of carbon dioxide each year,[4] about one fifth of world greenhouse gas emissions, so are the single largest cause of climate change. 8500 coal power plants in the world. “Coal-fired power stations emit over 10 Gt of carbon dioxide each year,[4] about one fifth of world greenhouse gas emissions, so are the single largest cause of climate change.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal-fired_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal-fired_power_station So, we start the discussion with air travel, trying to reduce 2% to under 2%. While we’ve ignored 20% of global emissions. We actually cost ourselves decades. So many miracles needed by 2050, when we could be talking 2070. Now, let’s just tell everyone we need to do everything at once.
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  > That’s not correct. There are large emission issues that would should tackle first. No we should and can and are working on tackling everything at once because we don’t have the time to sit on our ass and wait for others to solve issues which don’t affect us before moving if we want our way of life to survive. There is no valid reason to work sequentially here.

melling 4y ago

That’s not correct. There are large emission issues that would should tackle first. How we generate electricity is one of them. Carl Sagan warned us almost 40 years ago that coal would be a future problem. https://youtu.be/Wp-WiNXH6hI https://youtu.be/Wp-WiNXH6hI That was clearly a large problem that could have been addressed, and still needs to be ASAP. Coal-fired power stations emit over 10 Gt of carbon dioxide each year,[4] about one fifth of world greenhouse gas emissions, so are the single largest cause of climate change. 8500 coal power plants in the world. “Coal-fired power stations emit over 10 Gt of carbon dioxide each year,[4] about one fifth of world greenhouse gas emissions, so are the single largest cause of climate change.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal-fired_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal-fired_power_station So, we start the discussion with air travel, trying to reduce 2% to under 2%. While we’ve ignored 20% of global emissions. We actually cost ourselves decades. So many miracles needed by 2050, when we could be talking 2070. Now, let’s just tell everyone we need to do everything at once.

WastingMyTime89 4y ago
> That’s not correct. There are large emission issues that would should tackle first. No we should and can and are working on tackling everything at once because we don’t have the time to sit on our ass and wait for others to solve issues which don’t affect us before moving if we want our way of life to survive. There is no valid reason to work sequentially here.