4 ms·

To put the carbon emissions of the flight into perspective: 1. Approximately 22,200 kWh of electricity usage. 2. 674 kg (or about 1,486 pounds) of grazed beef

To put the carbon emissions of the flight into perspective: 1. Approximately 22,200 kWh of electricity usage. 2. 674 kg (or about 1,486 pounds) of grazed beef. 3.1-2 new freshwater wells in rural areas

smileysteve 3y ago
On the bright side, Delta buys carbon credits for all of its flights. https://www.delta.com/us/en/about-delta/sustainability https://www.delta.com/us/en/about-delta/sustainability *note there are lawsuits on the dubiousness of the credits and the focus on carbon removal.
Panino 3y ago
Although my first thought was also the climate emissions, we have to be careful with these numbers, as 1kWh of electricity in Sweden is very different from 1kWh of electricity in Poland. https://app.electricitymaps.com/map https://app.electricitymaps.com/map Poland is about 30x dirtier than Sweden. World numbers vary all over the place. Similarly for beef - are the cattle raised under conventional agriculture (with maximum emissions) or regenerative agriculture (with minimum emissions)? By my rough count, an example round-trip flight for this trip is about 2600 miles (~4200km) with an approximate climate cost of about 1100kg per person. This accounts for the fact that airline emissions do roughly 3x the damage as expected (compared to ground transportation) as contrails form cirrus clouds which "are too thin to reflect much sunlight, but ice crystals inside them can trap heat. Unlike low-level clouds that have a net cooling effect, these contrail-formed clouds warm the climate... A 2011 study suggests that the net effect of these contrail clouds contributes more to atmospheric warming than all the carbon dioxide (CO2) produced by planes since the dawn of aviation." https://www.science.org/content/article/aviation-s-dirty-secret-airplane-contrails-are-surprisingly-potent-cause-global-warming https://www.science.org/content/article/aviation-s-dirty-sec... We have ways to make electricity and food carbon-cheap, and potentially even carbon-negative, but the same is not currently true for flying. I think we should move to passenger ships for transoceanic trips and electrified trains for overland travel.
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  I used “India” as my locality when pricing the relative carbon
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
avalys 3y ago
How do you propose society go about determining which life experiences are worth their corresponding carbon emissions, knowing that there is enormous variety in what experiences people value?
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  How about we put a floor on bad experiences instead of trying to figure out how to push our experiences further we can start by collectively solving poverty and go from there It’s really as simple as caring about improving the world for others worse off than you over making yourself more comfortable Only you can determine where your lines are
  - avalys 3y ago
    So no one can do anything fun until poverty is solved?
    - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
      At what point did I admonish “having fun?” Why is my simple advocacy for the elimination of poverty threatening to your philosophy? Or are you projecting your fears and biases into the discussion?
      - sinman 3y ago
        Well, perhaps you can clarify my confusion, which could be similar to the poster you are replying to: I took your original point "caring about improving the world for others" to mean "you should make decent efforts/sacrifices to help others if you have the capacity". That is, you should not go on this flight, because the CO2 released will make the world a worse place. But if you have this moral obligation to help others, it seems like the much greater mistake here is to spend $1200/person on the flight. $1200 is enough to save ~240 children's lives for a year if donated to an effective charity (Helen Keller Foundation). Compared to that good, the moral harm of the CO2 released is a rounding error (someone mentioned a bit over 1 ton/person). I've never understood the moral axiom that says "you need to make sacrifices for others, but only if those sacrifices are for carbon dioxide release. You don't have to make much smaller sacrifices which do vastly more good". That to me seems clearly absurd - can you help me understand what mistake I'm making? To be clear, I'm not saying it's wrong to cut your carbon footprint - I'm saying that if there's a moral compulsion to do that, it seems like there's a stronger moral compulsion to donate a high % of your worth to effective charities. But nobody every seems to think that is the case!

smileysteve 3y ago

On the bright side, Delta buys carbon credits for all of its flights. https://www.delta.com/us/en/about-delta/sustainability https://www.delta.com/us/en/about-delta/sustainability *note there are lawsuits on the dubiousness of the credits and the focus on carbon removal.

Panino 3y ago

Although my first thought was also the climate emissions, we have to be careful with these numbers, as 1kWh of electricity in Sweden is very different from 1kWh of electricity in Poland. https://app.electricitymaps.com/map https://app.electricitymaps.com/map Poland is about 30x dirtier than Sweden. World numbers vary all over the place. Similarly for beef - are the cattle raised under conventional agriculture (with maximum emissions) or regenerative agriculture (with minimum emissions)? By my rough count, an example round-trip flight for this trip is about 2600 miles (~4200km) with an approximate climate cost of about 1100kg per person. This accounts for the fact that airline emissions do roughly 3x the damage as expected (compared to ground transportation) as contrails form cirrus clouds which "are too thin to reflect much sunlight, but ice crystals inside them can trap heat. Unlike low-level clouds that have a net cooling effect, these contrail-formed clouds warm the climate... A 2011 study suggests that the net effect of these contrail clouds contributes more to atmospheric warming than all the carbon dioxide (CO2) produced by planes since the dawn of aviation." https://www.science.org/content/article/aviation-s-dirty-secret-airplane-contrails-are-surprisingly-potent-cause-global-warming https://www.science.org/content/article/aviation-s-dirty-sec... We have ways to make electricity and food carbon-cheap, and potentially even carbon-negative, but the same is not currently true for flying. I think we should move to passenger ships for transoceanic trips and electrified trains for overland travel.

AndrewKemendo 3y ago
I used “India” as my locality when pricing the relative carbon

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

avalys 3y ago

How do you propose society go about determining which life experiences are worth their corresponding carbon emissions, knowing that there is enormous variety in what experiences people value?

AndrewKemendo 3y ago
How about we put a floor on bad experiences instead of trying to figure out how to push our experiences further we can start by collectively solving poverty and go from there It’s really as simple as caring about improving the world for others worse off than you over making yourself more comfortable Only you can determine where your lines are
- avalys 3y ago
  So no one can do anything fun until poverty is solved?
  - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
    At what point did I admonish “having fun?” Why is my simple advocacy for the elimination of poverty threatening to your philosophy? Or are you projecting your fears and biases into the discussion?
    - sinman 3y ago
      Well, perhaps you can clarify my confusion, which could be similar to the poster you are replying to: I took your original point "caring about improving the world for others" to mean "you should make decent efforts/sacrifices to help others if you have the capacity". That is, you should not go on this flight, because the CO2 released will make the world a worse place. But if you have this moral obligation to help others, it seems like the much greater mistake here is to spend $1200/person on the flight. $1200 is enough to save ~240 children's lives for a year if donated to an effective charity (Helen Keller Foundation). Compared to that good, the moral harm of the CO2 released is a rounding error (someone mentioned a bit over 1 ton/person). I've never understood the moral axiom that says "you need to make sacrifices for others, but only if those sacrifices are for carbon dioxide release. You don't have to make much smaller sacrifices which do vastly more good". That to me seems clearly absurd - can you help me understand what mistake I'm making? To be clear, I'm not saying it's wrong to cut your carbon footprint - I'm saying that if there's a moral compulsion to do that, it seems like there's a stronger moral compulsion to donate a high % of your worth to effective charities. But nobody every seems to think that is the case!