5 ms·

> To remove at most 2% of greenhouse gas emissions? The problem with this argument is that everything is a small percentage contribution if you break it down e

> To remove at most 2% of greenhouse gas emissions? The problem with this argument is that everything is a small percentage contribution if you break it down enough. At the moment some UK politicians are saying the UK shouldn't be concerned about reducing emissions because the UK only contributes about 1% to global emissions (we also have ~1% of the world's population which I think rather negates this argument). 2% is a lot. If we want to tackle this problem in a reasonable timescale we need to go for the low hanging fruit, the high hanging fruit, and all the fruit in between.

berkes 3y ago
2% may be a lot, especially in absolute numbers. But it costs money and effort to decrease that. Money and effort that cannot be spend elsewhere. I'm quite certain that efforts such as "taxing kerosine on international flights", "charge VAT for flights", or even "removing all subsidies for beef and pork production in the EU" have a much larger effect. So if we can spare our effort or funds only once, those would be much more obvious places to start. As I said elsewhere: if CO2 emission reduction comes for free with a project that tries to fix health issues with cooking, then fine. But let's not pretend we are doing anything to save our (ability to live on) the planet here.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  2% is a lot. It is about the same as eliminating all US or European automotive transport, with no replacement. Completely eliminating global air travel would also be about 2% of CO2. I would not be surprised if low CO2 cooking was vastly more cost efficient in terms of $/GHG than what you would get from a similar spend elsewhere.
  - berkes 3y ago
    Hmm. The data that I know shows very different values. In the tens of percents for "global cattle/agriculture-supporting animal protein" and over four percent for global air travel. But, indeed, 2% is more than many country contribute¹. Still far less than e.g. driving around in Pickup-trucks. Or, most obvious: burning coal for electricity³. ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_locations_and_entities_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions#Scope_1+3_emissions,_cumulative_of_the_years_1988_-_2015,_from_oil_and_gas_extraction_[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_locations_and_entities... ² https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_locations_and_entities_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions#Scope_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_locations_and_entities... ³ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_locations_and_entities_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions#All_cause_1+3_cumulative_emissions_[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_locations_and_entities...
- chimprich 3y ago
  > "taxing kerosine on international flights", "charge VAT for flights" This is problematic. The more you tax flying, the more you make it only a rich person's activity. Why only international flights? Domestic flights produce about the same amount of emissions, and are easier to substitute with something else, e.g. train journeys. The other problem with aviation is that we don't have any tech that can really replace it, whereas we have the tech now to replace most other sources of emissions. My view is that if we can get all the sources of emissions down, then we can probably live with the 2% or so of emissions from aviation until we have the tech to replace it. > or even "removing all subsidies for beef and pork production in the EU" This is something I'd support. Reducing red meat consumption would likely improve health, the environment, animal welfare, and other things as well as reducing emissions. However, very difficult to achieve politically. > But let's not pretend we are doing anything to save our (ability to live on) the planet here. We need a multi-pronged approach to simultaneously reduce emissions on all fronts. We can't just ignore 2% of global emissions if we're serious about tackling the problem.
  - berkes 3y ago
    > The more you tax flying, the more you make it only a rich person's activity. Why is that a problem? Climbing the Mount Everest, Joining a Country Club, or flying into space is also a rich person's activity - is that a problem too? > Why only international flights AFAIK some countries already tax domestic flights. And if they don't, that's easy to achieve. Taxing international flights is harder, because there'll always be a few countries that won't agree. > However, very difficult to achieve politically. Yes. But "difficult to achieve politically" is strange: because the only hurdle to take is not a 'real' hurdle. Not 'real' as most engineering, or economic hurdles are. It's not a matter of money, funds, scientific breakthroughs or such, it's mere a matter of willingness to change. Which, it appears, is one of the hardest hurdles to take. And yes: I agree we should not leave any percent improvement on the table. But I remain with my point that money and effort that we can spend only once, should not go to changing the habits, cultutre and lifestyle of 1/4th of the worlds' population for a meagre 2% win, but to changing the habits, culture and lifestyle of another part of the population can get us a 15% win. Ideally we'd be able to spend that effort and money twice. For a total 17% win. But as long as we cannot do that, let's spend it on where it gets the biggest results.

berkes 3y ago

2% may be a lot, especially in absolute numbers. But it costs money and effort to decrease that. Money and effort that cannot be spend elsewhere. I'm quite certain that efforts such as "taxing kerosine on international flights", "charge VAT for flights", or even "removing all subsidies for beef and pork production in the EU" have a much larger effect. So if we can spare our effort or funds only once, those would be much more obvious places to start. As I said elsewhere: if CO2 emission reduction comes for free with a project that tries to fix health issues with cooking, then fine. But let's not pretend we are doing anything to save our (ability to live on) the planet here.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
2% is a lot. It is about the same as eliminating all US or European automotive transport, with no replacement. Completely eliminating global air travel would also be about 2% of CO2. I would not be surprised if low CO2 cooking was vastly more cost efficient in terms of $/GHG than what you would get from a similar spend elsewhere.
- berkes 3y ago
  Hmm. The data that I know shows very different values. In the tens of percents for "global cattle/agriculture-supporting animal protein" and over four percent for global air travel. But, indeed, 2% is more than many country contribute¹. Still far less than e.g. driving around in Pickup-trucks. Or, most obvious: burning coal for electricity³. ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_locations_and_entities_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions#Scope_1+3_emissions,_cumulative_of_the_years_1988_-_2015,_from_oil_and_gas_extraction_[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_locations_and_entities... ² https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_locations_and_entities_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions#Scope_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_locations_and_entities... ³ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_locations_and_entities_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions#All_cause_1+3_cumulative_emissions_[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_locations_and_entities...
chimprich 3y ago
> "taxing kerosine on international flights", "charge VAT for flights" This is problematic. The more you tax flying, the more you make it only a rich person's activity. Why only international flights? Domestic flights produce about the same amount of emissions, and are easier to substitute with something else, e.g. train journeys. The other problem with aviation is that we don't have any tech that can really replace it, whereas we have the tech now to replace most other sources of emissions. My view is that if we can get all the sources of emissions down, then we can probably live with the 2% or so of emissions from aviation until we have the tech to replace it. > or even "removing all subsidies for beef and pork production in the EU" This is something I'd support. Reducing red meat consumption would likely improve health, the environment, animal welfare, and other things as well as reducing emissions. However, very difficult to achieve politically. > But let's not pretend we are doing anything to save our (ability to live on) the planet here. We need a multi-pronged approach to simultaneously reduce emissions on all fronts. We can't just ignore 2% of global emissions if we're serious about tackling the problem.
- berkes 3y ago
  > The more you tax flying, the more you make it only a rich person's activity. Why is that a problem? Climbing the Mount Everest, Joining a Country Club, or flying into space is also a rich person's activity - is that a problem too? > Why only international flights AFAIK some countries already tax domestic flights. And if they don't, that's easy to achieve. Taxing international flights is harder, because there'll always be a few countries that won't agree. > However, very difficult to achieve politically. Yes. But "difficult to achieve politically" is strange: because the only hurdle to take is not a 'real' hurdle. Not 'real' as most engineering, or economic hurdles are. It's not a matter of money, funds, scientific breakthroughs or such, it's mere a matter of willingness to change. Which, it appears, is one of the hardest hurdles to take. And yes: I agree we should not leave any percent improvement on the table. But I remain with my point that money and effort that we can spend only once, should not go to changing the habits, cultutre and lifestyle of 1/4th of the worlds' population for a meagre 2% win, but to changing the habits, culture and lifestyle of another part of the population can get us a 15% win. Ideally we'd be able to spend that effort and money twice. For a total 17% win. But as long as we cannot do that, let's spend it on where it gets the biggest results.