8 ms·

Since 99.9% of the flights and the people are already registered, there should be a worldwide limitation per each of the person for CO2 emissions.

seeknotfind 3y ago
The ability to restrict something doesn't imply it's ideal to restrict that thing. Some people should use more CO2, just like some people should go to space, or some people should be lawyer.
- fragmede 3y ago
  There are heavy restrictions on the number of people you're allowed to kill.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- mmcwilliams 3y ago
  I'm not sure they're totally equivalent because law degrees and jobs as astronauts aren't exactly zero-sum.
- mcbrienollie 3y ago
  This can be adapted into different scenarios or use cases. At least it could be the first action into the CO2 emission problem that everybody is complaining about but nobody really does a thing. Well, also maybe we can let Kim Kardashian to have Zoom calls rather than taking flights.
  - seeknotfind 3y ago
    Yeah no problem with a limit, only with a per capita limit
- BrianHenryIE 3y ago
  Sure, but it's important to put that in the context of the vast majority of the world's population who never fly, me who flies maybe three times a year, and people who flight weekly or more for the purpose of entertainment or a luxury lifestyle. Make it progressively more expensive to fly more miles to moderate the excesses; offer tax breaks where it is beneficial for the entire community.
- saghm 3y ago
  The idea that some people will use more of a resource than another doesn't imply it's ideal to have no limit whatsoever on its usage either though; there might be some amount of CO2 that's unreasonable for a single person to use, just like having different professions being useful doesn't mean that every possible profession (like murder for hire) should be allowed.
monero-xmr 3y ago
If your goal is to cause a revolution, then limiting freedom by “carbon emission limits” is an effective way to do it.
- jonplackett 3y ago
  I think a revolution starting because Kyle Jenner isn’t allowed to use her private jet quite as much is… unlikely
  - gwervc 3y ago
    Private jet owners won't be the targets of such laws: luxury car are excluded from the future oil engine ban in the EU, and private jets aren't subjected to the recent law forbidding short distance domestic airlines in France. That kind of ideas is parroted by people would be the first to suffer, while the "elite" will of course be exempted to comply. This is yet another power grab for the happy few.
- mcbrienollie 3y ago
  There are multiple ways to travel. You can have a bike to commute into work rather than taking your car. This is not a freedom limitation. It is just a different perspective. Greta Thunberg travels everywhere freely by keeping emission in mind.
  - monero-xmr 3y ago
    Just tax externalities and let people pay for the privilege. Banning things - literally using the force of the state to prevent traveling too often by plane or banning cars or making everyone ride bikes - is only a green fantasy, and a terrible authoritarian unworkable one.
jonplackett 3y ago
Yeah it’s one of the few things where we have all agreed, and decided we’re fine about the need to have verified government ID to do it. A limit of miles/kg per person would be a very simple database to set up
monkeywork 3y ago
That is some high-level authoritarian nonsense right there. Should there also be limits on how many KM's a person can drive a year? How many often the BBQ in their backyard? What is the penalty for exceeding said limit in your fantasy? edit Just out of curiosity I took what seems to be the "average" of the reported number of billionaires in America as 800, and the average yearly CO2 from flying via the linked article at a high point of also say 800 tons (which is likely high but easy math). That works out to 640000 tons of CO2 from all the billionaires flying around in a year. Another quick search on how much CO2 is produced in the USA per year came out as 5.2 billion metric tons. That means these flights are accounting for 0.0123076923% of the USA's CO2 production ... or put another way it's a rounding error.
- mcbrienollie 3y ago
  I'm just saying there should be a "regulation". A couple of years ago, everybody accepted the fact that people all should have 3 shots of vaccination to have a flight. Everybody got opposed to it. But got the shots eventually. I'm not the guy who has the golden law that will change the world. I'm just proposing that CO2 emission is a big problem and some of the people are exploiting it.
  - monkeywork 3y ago
    >A couple of years ago, everybody accepted the fact that people all should have 3 shots of vaccination to have a flight. Everybody got opposed to it. But got the shots eventually. Which if you look back it logically now with all the evidence, we have in hindsight was an overreach that did very little good. >I'm not the guy who has the golden law that will change the world. I'm just proposing that CO2 emission is a big problem and some of the people are exploiting it. Which I get - however the problem with your comment (and much of the internet as a whole) is that people see a complex problem and toss out a twitter sized "obvious solution" to it without any actual thought behind it, this then causes all kinds of noise with very little signal and furthers divides. Just by replying to you some other person suggested I was "triggered" and must be on said list... That's the problem.
- warent 3y ago
victorbjorklund 3y ago
"Sorry, the president of country X cant come to UN and discuss a ceasefire because he already ysed up all his emissions so the war has to keep going until the next CO2 reset"
- JumpinJack_Cash 3y ago
  They go to NYC to hit Nobu and bang the elite escorts let's not act like problems cannot be solved remotely, we did it for 2 years. Especially diplomatic problems are about tit for tat. Kennedy and Kruschev disengaged the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 via letters taking 8 hours to reach the other party
mrshadowgoose 3y ago
No thank you. There's no need for that. Instead of this petty, divisive and hostile nonsense, how about we just acknowledge that our civilization is fundamentally based on energy use, and work towards making all our energy use carbon-neutral? Our planet receives enough harnessable solar energy to allow every single human being an energy allocation far in excess of a typical American. There's absolutely no need to be hostile towards other people's energy use. Advocate for fundamental change, not petty ineffectual bullshit.
- mcbrienollie 3y ago
  I totally agree with the fundamental changes. Rest is bullshit. What would be your suggestion on Kardaishan's energy consumption levels? Having a crash course?
  - mrshadowgoose 3y ago
    > What would be your suggestion on Kardaishan's energy consumption levels? Having a crash course? Couldn't care less. Seriously, go do the math on how much energy is available to us. It will blow your ignorant little mind.
    - lxgr 3y ago
      Nobody is claiming that humanity is at a risk of running out of energy. The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones either.
- lxgr 3y ago
  > Our planet receives enough harnessable solar energy to allow every single human being an energy allocation far in excess of a typical American. Yes, but is it currently being harvested? Do we have a plausible path towards that future? > There's absolutely no need to be hostile towards other people's energy use. No, but there's a dire need to properly account for the externalities of everybody's CO2 emissions if we want to be able to plausibly call our economy market-based.
forty 3y ago
I think it could make sense: scientists are probably able to compute a total quantity of CO2 that we can emit worldwide to achieve some climatic goals (like not being f* too badly too quickly). Then divide this total by number of inhabitant of this world and limit yearly individual emissions to that. Then you don't have to track for everyone, just target those who are ostensibly breaking the limit.

seeknotfind 3y ago

The ability to restrict something doesn't imply it's ideal to restrict that thing. Some people should use more CO2, just like some people should go to space, or some people should be lawyer.

fragmede 3y ago
There are heavy restrictions on the number of people you're allowed to kill.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
mmcwilliams 3y ago
I'm not sure they're totally equivalent because law degrees and jobs as astronauts aren't exactly zero-sum.
mcbrienollie 3y ago
This can be adapted into different scenarios or use cases. At least it could be the first action into the CO2 emission problem that everybody is complaining about but nobody really does a thing. Well, also maybe we can let Kim Kardashian to have Zoom calls rather than taking flights.
- seeknotfind 3y ago
  Yeah no problem with a limit, only with a per capita limit
BrianHenryIE 3y ago
Sure, but it's important to put that in the context of the vast majority of the world's population who never fly, me who flies maybe three times a year, and people who flight weekly or more for the purpose of entertainment or a luxury lifestyle. Make it progressively more expensive to fly more miles to moderate the excesses; offer tax breaks where it is beneficial for the entire community.
saghm 3y ago
The idea that some people will use more of a resource than another doesn't imply it's ideal to have no limit whatsoever on its usage either though; there might be some amount of CO2 that's unreasonable for a single person to use, just like having different professions being useful doesn't mean that every possible profession (like murder for hire) should be allowed.

monero-xmr 3y ago

If your goal is to cause a revolution, then limiting freedom by “carbon emission limits” is an effective way to do it.

jonplackett 3y ago
I think a revolution starting because Kyle Jenner isn’t allowed to use her private jet quite as much is… unlikely
- gwervc 3y ago
  Private jet owners won't be the targets of such laws: luxury car are excluded from the future oil engine ban in the EU, and private jets aren't subjected to the recent law forbidding short distance domestic airlines in France. That kind of ideas is parroted by people would be the first to suffer, while the "elite" will of course be exempted to comply. This is yet another power grab for the happy few.
mcbrienollie 3y ago
There are multiple ways to travel. You can have a bike to commute into work rather than taking your car. This is not a freedom limitation. It is just a different perspective. Greta Thunberg travels everywhere freely by keeping emission in mind.
- monero-xmr 3y ago
  Just tax externalities and let people pay for the privilege. Banning things - literally using the force of the state to prevent traveling too often by plane or banning cars or making everyone ride bikes - is only a green fantasy, and a terrible authoritarian unworkable one.

jonplackett 3y ago

Yeah it’s one of the few things where we have all agreed, and decided we’re fine about the need to have verified government ID to do it. A limit of miles/kg per person would be a very simple database to set up

monkeywork 3y ago

That is some high-level authoritarian nonsense right there. Should there also be limits on how many KM's a person can drive a year? How many often the BBQ in their backyard? What is the penalty for exceeding said limit in your fantasy? edit Just out of curiosity I took what seems to be the "average" of the reported number of billionaires in America as 800, and the average yearly CO2 from flying via the linked article at a high point of also say 800 tons (which is likely high but easy math). That works out to 640000 tons of CO2 from all the billionaires flying around in a year. Another quick search on how much CO2 is produced in the USA per year came out as 5.2 billion metric tons. That means these flights are accounting for 0.0123076923% of the USA's CO2 production ... or put another way it's a rounding error.

mcbrienollie 3y ago
I'm just saying there should be a "regulation". A couple of years ago, everybody accepted the fact that people all should have 3 shots of vaccination to have a flight. Everybody got opposed to it. But got the shots eventually. I'm not the guy who has the golden law that will change the world. I'm just proposing that CO2 emission is a big problem and some of the people are exploiting it.
- monkeywork 3y ago
  >A couple of years ago, everybody accepted the fact that people all should have 3 shots of vaccination to have a flight. Everybody got opposed to it. But got the shots eventually. Which if you look back it logically now with all the evidence, we have in hindsight was an overreach that did very little good. >I'm not the guy who has the golden law that will change the world. I'm just proposing that CO2 emission is a big problem and some of the people are exploiting it. Which I get - however the problem with your comment (and much of the internet as a whole) is that people see a complex problem and toss out a twitter sized "obvious solution" to it without any actual thought behind it, this then causes all kinds of noise with very little signal and furthers divides. Just by replying to you some other person suggested I was "triggered" and must be on said list... That's the problem.
warent 3y ago

victorbjorklund 3y ago

"Sorry, the president of country X cant come to UN and discuss a ceasefire because he already ysed up all his emissions so the war has to keep going until the next CO2 reset"

JumpinJack_Cash 3y ago
They go to NYC to hit Nobu and bang the elite escorts let's not act like problems cannot be solved remotely, we did it for 2 years. Especially diplomatic problems are about tit for tat. Kennedy and Kruschev disengaged the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 via letters taking 8 hours to reach the other party

mrshadowgoose 3y ago

No thank you. There's no need for that. Instead of this petty, divisive and hostile nonsense, how about we just acknowledge that our civilization is fundamentally based on energy use, and work towards making all our energy use carbon-neutral? Our planet receives enough harnessable solar energy to allow every single human being an energy allocation far in excess of a typical American. There's absolutely no need to be hostile towards other people's energy use. Advocate for fundamental change, not petty ineffectual bullshit.

mcbrienollie 3y ago
I totally agree with the fundamental changes. Rest is bullshit. What would be your suggestion on Kardaishan's energy consumption levels? Having a crash course?
- mrshadowgoose 3y ago
  > What would be your suggestion on Kardaishan's energy consumption levels? Having a crash course? Couldn't care less. Seriously, go do the math on how much energy is available to us. It will blow your ignorant little mind.
  - lxgr 3y ago
    Nobody is claiming that humanity is at a risk of running out of energy. The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones either.
lxgr 3y ago
> Our planet receives enough harnessable solar energy to allow every single human being an energy allocation far in excess of a typical American. Yes, but is it currently being harvested? Do we have a plausible path towards that future? > There's absolutely no need to be hostile towards other people's energy use. No, but there's a dire need to properly account for the externalities of everybody's CO2 emissions if we want to be able to plausibly call our economy market-based.

forty 3y ago

I think it could make sense: scientists are probably able to compute a total quantity of CO2 that we can emit worldwide to achieve some climatic goals (like not being f* too badly too quickly). Then divide this total by number of inhabitant of this world and limit yearly individual emissions to that. Then you don't have to track for everyone, just target those who are ostensibly breaking the limit.