4 ms·

> When I suggest that people shouldn't fly in planes, I get responses like I've called their children ugly. Isolating everyone to only ever see the place they

by abenga 2y ago

> When I suggest that people shouldn't fly in planes, I get responses like I've called their children ugly. Isolating everyone to only ever see the place they were born and never travel the world seems like a big overreaction to me. Transport (and specifically aviation) is hardly the biggest offender as well. Energy, Industry, and Agriculture are 80% of emissions, we should start there.

silverquiet 2y ago
There are less carbon intensive methods of travel, though they obviously come with inconveniences. Also, the technology to see and learn about other places has never been better or more available to everyone. People seem to like working from home, perhaps they can learn to do more from home generally (and again I'll be told that that is a ridiculous notion). But if I really wanted to start a flamewar, I'd suggest agricultural changes; that is eating less beef in particular and meat generally. There are reasons so many religions have diet restrictions - it's a fairly fundamental part of human identity.
- abenga 2y ago
  There are large-effect changes that can be made industry-wide (reducing the carbon intensity of power grids for example) that can be done before we start asking people to change fundamental aspects of their culture like diet. These efforts targeted at changing individual behavior are distractions from actual things that economies could choose to do centrally to largely fix the problems. There is no reason we need to continue burn coal/gas to generate power, except that we think it is too expensive to make the effort to switch over. For example, Germany choosing to shut down nuclear power plants while there are still fossil power plants on their grid means they don't really believe that climate change is as big a threat to civilization as they say elsewhere.
  - silverquiet 2y ago
    The large-scale vs personal scale thing is a false dichotomy, ultimately it means individuals sacrifice energy use. But moreover, I cannot control the economy; I can only control my own actions, and I feel a responsibility to do so. Perhaps this is a fault of my character - it certainly brings me more discomfort than I'd like, but ultimately I do feel more at peace with my existence on this planet.
    - bryanlarsen 2y ago
      > When I suggest that people shouldn't fly in planes, I get responses like I've called their children ugly It's one thing to do something to make yourself feel comfortable, it's another to say things to make others feel uncomfortable.
      - silverquiet 2y ago
        I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I actually acknowledged that my own life is less comfortable than it could be (and I still probably use more than "my share" of carbon compared to global means). I will in fact be traveling this summer and I assure you that flying on a plane would be more comfortable than the arrangements I have made. But life is often uncomfortable; sometimes you must endure a needle or a surgery in order to receive life-saving medicine. My city in South Texas hit a record heat index of 117 last year - I can assure you that that is very uncomfortable, and yet we are still in the relatively early stages of global warming; I assume that I'll need to move north at some point in my life. But even I fear some discomforts - I cannot imagine a frank discussion with children today about the future they are staring down, and I have to imagine its one that nearly all parents will face (not that I am among them).
    - abenga 2y ago
      The main issue is the actual effect of your actions. One person living as energy-frugally as possible may make them feel good, but ultimately it's pointless unless another couple of billion people join you, and sadly, many of us are some varying degree of apathetic or ignorant. I may be wrong, but I think larger actions like replacing power plants, etc. are far easier to do at this point.
      - silverquiet 2y ago
        It's a funny thing these days; there are two "optimistic" camps. One that says that social change is impossible, but technology can save us, and the other that says that we have no real near-term technological fixes, but we can be saved by large-scale changes to society. In an irony that would be delicious if it weren't so existentially terrifying, I think they are both right and both wrong, but not the way we'd wish.
lozenge 2y ago
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman Nature doesn't care how much enjoyment people get from travelling the world. It just experiences the impact on the atmosphere. Energy, industry and agriculture all improve everyone's lives, while less than 20% of the world population has taken even a single flight.
bryanlarsen 2y ago
> Energy, Industry, and Agriculture are 80% of emissions, we should start there. Both transport and heating each comprise more than 20%. And telling people they shouldn't eat meat will likely result in even more backlash than telling them they shouldn't fly.

by abenga 2y ago

silverquiet 2y ago

There are less carbon intensive methods of travel, though they obviously come with inconveniences. Also, the technology to see and learn about other places has never been better or more available to everyone. People seem to like working from home, perhaps they can learn to do more from home generally (and again I'll be told that that is a ridiculous notion). But if I really wanted to start a flamewar, I'd suggest agricultural changes; that is eating less beef in particular and meat generally. There are reasons so many religions have diet restrictions - it's a fairly fundamental part of human identity.

abenga 2y ago
There are large-effect changes that can be made industry-wide (reducing the carbon intensity of power grids for example) that can be done before we start asking people to change fundamental aspects of their culture like diet. These efforts targeted at changing individual behavior are distractions from actual things that economies could choose to do centrally to largely fix the problems. There is no reason we need to continue burn coal/gas to generate power, except that we think it is too expensive to make the effort to switch over. For example, Germany choosing to shut down nuclear power plants while there are still fossil power plants on their grid means they don't really believe that climate change is as big a threat to civilization as they say elsewhere.
- silverquiet 2y ago
  The large-scale vs personal scale thing is a false dichotomy, ultimately it means individuals sacrifice energy use. But moreover, I cannot control the economy; I can only control my own actions, and I feel a responsibility to do so. Perhaps this is a fault of my character - it certainly brings me more discomfort than I'd like, but ultimately I do feel more at peace with my existence on this planet.
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    > When I suggest that people shouldn't fly in planes, I get responses like I've called their children ugly It's one thing to do something to make yourself feel comfortable, it's another to say things to make others feel uncomfortable.
    - silverquiet 2y ago
      I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I actually acknowledged that my own life is less comfortable than it could be (and I still probably use more than "my share" of carbon compared to global means). I will in fact be traveling this summer and I assure you that flying on a plane would be more comfortable than the arrangements I have made. But life is often uncomfortable; sometimes you must endure a needle or a surgery in order to receive life-saving medicine. My city in South Texas hit a record heat index of 117 last year - I can assure you that that is very uncomfortable, and yet we are still in the relatively early stages of global warming; I assume that I'll need to move north at some point in my life. But even I fear some discomforts - I cannot imagine a frank discussion with children today about the future they are staring down, and I have to imagine its one that nearly all parents will face (not that I am among them).
  - abenga 2y ago
    The main issue is the actual effect of your actions. One person living as energy-frugally as possible may make them feel good, but ultimately it's pointless unless another couple of billion people join you, and sadly, many of us are some varying degree of apathetic or ignorant. I may be wrong, but I think larger actions like replacing power plants, etc. are far easier to do at this point.
    - silverquiet 2y ago
      It's a funny thing these days; there are two "optimistic" camps. One that says that social change is impossible, but technology can save us, and the other that says that we have no real near-term technological fixes, but we can be saved by large-scale changes to society. In an irony that would be delicious if it weren't so existentially terrifying, I think they are both right and both wrong, but not the way we'd wish.

lozenge 2y ago

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman Nature doesn't care how much enjoyment people get from travelling the world. It just experiences the impact on the atmosphere. Energy, industry and agriculture all improve everyone's lives, while less than 20% of the world population has taken even a single flight.

bryanlarsen 2y ago

> Energy, Industry, and Agriculture are 80% of emissions, we should start there. Both transport and heating each comprise more than 20%. And telling people they shouldn't eat meat will likely result in even more backlash than telling them they shouldn't fly.