4 ms·

I truly hope this is performance art, because there is no way that anyone with half a brain cell or more could believe that banning ads for travel will magicall

I truly hope this is performance art, because there is no way that anyone with half a brain cell or more could believe that banning ads for travel will magically make it possible to bike to New Zealand, or that it will impact real polluters (India, China)

unsnap_biceps 2y ago
No it won't, but ads are only done because they believe the ROI is worth it. If you accept that they're not just throwing money away, ads must increase consumption. Banning the ads must, therefore, decrease consumption. Yes, people will still fly, but maybe a few trips a year won't happen due to it not being right in someone's face. There's no harm in reducing consumption.
- RandomLensman 2y ago
  There is harm in reducing consumption as money will be allocated elsewhere: someone will lose, someone else might gain.
- abecedarius 2y ago
  An airline's ad is mostly trying to get your business away from the competing airlines, not to increase overall passenger flight (afaik). The main effect if that's right seems like it'll be to protect established firms at the expense of new entrants.
oktoberpaard 2y ago
To be fair, it’s incredibly cheap to take a flight to about anywhere else in Europe, for which alternatives often do exist, and that’s probably what it’s mostly targeted against. That being said, I doubt that it’s very effective. It’s more symbolic I guess.
- mcejp 2y ago
  I would agree that the flying has become "unreasonably" cheap given the negative externalities, but if we are talking about traveling over distances of >500 km, the alternatives are rarely compelling -- unless you are lucky enough have a direct high-speed-rail connection to your destination.
  - Muromec 2y ago
    Then don't travel further than 500 km until we have a sustainable bio fuel. That's the only right answer.
lbrito 2y ago
Let me fix that for you. You actually meant: United States and Europe, by far the world's largest polluters since the industrial revolution (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co2-emissions-region?stackMode=absolute https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co2-emissions-...). Climate change didn't start today, so it makes no sense to blame whoever happens to be today's top polluter as the culprits. China emitted half the CO2 as the US, and India around 10%. Calling out those two countries is absurd.
- outside1234 2y ago
  You are both right. It is both worth calling out historical polluters and also making sure we push back on creating more polluting energy sources.
- abdullahkhalids 2y ago
  These graphs are misleading because they overestimate the "relevant emissions" of the global south countries. What I mean is that it is possible to emit some CO2 and it will just get absorbed and transformed back to O2 via natural processes in a sustainable fashion. So really from a country's emissions you should subtract off this number in some per capita fashion to get the actually relevant or excess emissions. If you do that I think you will find that a good number of countries have never emitted any excess emissions at all, and more than half have barely emitted anything of consequence. The blame on US, Europe, Canada, Australia will be even bigger than the ~70% shown on this chart.
- OptionOfT 2y ago
  The problem with cumulative data is that you can't justify your wrongdoing just because someone else did it too. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-region https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-re... The EU and USA are both shrinking, unlike China and India which are growing. We should all be cutting. The other part that I actually don't like about any of these metrics is that they don't take land-mass and population into account. Ideally you'd measure CO2 emissions per capita per square km/mile and compare that.
  - 2y ago
__rito__ 2y ago
> real polluters (India, China) Per capita CO2 emissions of India China US UK 2.07 9.24 13.83 4.42 US's per capita annual CO2 emission is 285% of that of global average, while India's is 43%. The amount of carbon you emit to go to the groceries is probably equal to produce all my groceries for a week.
- netsharc 2y ago
  Not to mention what's China doing with its CO2 emissions: making laptops, phones, cheap toys for USA and Europe...
  - __rito__ 2y ago
    Yes. Much of US's production has shifted to China and other Asian countries. So, if you factor in consumption as well as production, the Western world does even worse in terms of responsibility for CO2 production.
Muromec 2y ago
A nice 300% tax on air travel and suddenly you don't need to go to New Zeeland for a weekend anymore. And ad and tax-exemption for air travel is the opposite of it.
- hnburnsy 2y ago
  > A nice 300% tax on air travel and suddenly you don't need to go to New Zeeland for a weekend anymore. And ad and tax-exemption for air travel is the opposite of it. NZ just raised their tourist tax... https://onemileatatime.com/news/new-zealand-tourist-tax/ https://onemileatatime.com/news/new-zealand-tourist-tax/
netsharc 2y ago
Icelandair sent me a marketing email about cheap tickets to go there, I had a look around their website and I booked a holiday in Iceland... woah, advertising works!?!

unsnap_biceps 2y ago

No it won't, but ads are only done because they believe the ROI is worth it. If you accept that they're not just throwing money away, ads must increase consumption. Banning the ads must, therefore, decrease consumption. Yes, people will still fly, but maybe a few trips a year won't happen due to it not being right in someone's face. There's no harm in reducing consumption.

RandomLensman 2y ago
There is harm in reducing consumption as money will be allocated elsewhere: someone will lose, someone else might gain.
abecedarius 2y ago
An airline's ad is mostly trying to get your business away from the competing airlines, not to increase overall passenger flight (afaik). The main effect if that's right seems like it'll be to protect established firms at the expense of new entrants.

oktoberpaard 2y ago

To be fair, it’s incredibly cheap to take a flight to about anywhere else in Europe, for which alternatives often do exist, and that’s probably what it’s mostly targeted against. That being said, I doubt that it’s very effective. It’s more symbolic I guess.

mcejp 2y ago
I would agree that the flying has become "unreasonably" cheap given the negative externalities, but if we are talking about traveling over distances of >500 km, the alternatives are rarely compelling -- unless you are lucky enough have a direct high-speed-rail connection to your destination.
- Muromec 2y ago
  Then don't travel further than 500 km until we have a sustainable bio fuel. That's the only right answer.

lbrito 2y ago

Let me fix that for you. You actually meant: United States and Europe, by far the world's largest polluters since the industrial revolution (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co2-emissions-region?stackMode=absolute https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co2-emissions-...). Climate change didn't start today, so it makes no sense to blame whoever happens to be today's top polluter as the culprits. China emitted half the CO2 as the US, and India around 10%. Calling out those two countries is absurd.

outside1234 2y ago
You are both right. It is both worth calling out historical polluters and also making sure we push back on creating more polluting energy sources.
abdullahkhalids 2y ago
These graphs are misleading because they overestimate the "relevant emissions" of the global south countries. What I mean is that it is possible to emit some CO2 and it will just get absorbed and transformed back to O2 via natural processes in a sustainable fashion. So really from a country's emissions you should subtract off this number in some per capita fashion to get the actually relevant or excess emissions. If you do that I think you will find that a good number of countries have never emitted any excess emissions at all, and more than half have barely emitted anything of consequence. The blame on US, Europe, Canada, Australia will be even bigger than the ~70% shown on this chart.
OptionOfT 2y ago
The problem with cumulative data is that you can't justify your wrongdoing just because someone else did it too. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-region https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-re... The EU and USA are both shrinking, unlike China and India which are growing. We should all be cutting. The other part that I actually don't like about any of these metrics is that they don't take land-mass and population into account. Ideally you'd measure CO2 emissions per capita per square km/mile and compare that.
- 2y ago

__rito__ 2y ago

> real polluters (India, China) Per capita CO2 emissions of India China US UK 2.07 9.24 13.83 4.42 US's per capita annual CO2 emission is 285% of that of global average, while India's is 43%. The amount of carbon you emit to go to the groceries is probably equal to produce all my groceries for a week.

netsharc 2y ago
Not to mention what's China doing with its CO2 emissions: making laptops, phones, cheap toys for USA and Europe...
- __rito__ 2y ago
  Yes. Much of US's production has shifted to China and other Asian countries. So, if you factor in consumption as well as production, the Western world does even worse in terms of responsibility for CO2 production.

Muromec 2y ago

A nice 300% tax on air travel and suddenly you don't need to go to New Zeeland for a weekend anymore. And ad and tax-exemption for air travel is the opposite of it.

hnburnsy 2y ago
> A nice 300% tax on air travel and suddenly you don't need to go to New Zeeland for a weekend anymore. And ad and tax-exemption for air travel is the opposite of it. NZ just raised their tourist tax... https://onemileatatime.com/news/new-zealand-tourist-tax/ https://onemileatatime.com/news/new-zealand-tourist-tax/

netsharc 2y ago

Icelandair sent me a marketing email about cheap tickets to go there, I had a look around their website and I booked a holiday in Iceland... woah, advertising works!?!