3 ms·

Please look at this chart: https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector It's a few years old, but it

by xscott 2y ago

Please look at this chart: https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector It's a few years old, but it shows that ALL of emissions from ALL air transport is less than 2%. From the article: > Musk's [...] jets responsible for 5,497 tons of CO2 over the course of a year > Bezos' two-jet fleet emitting around 2,908 tons of carbon. World wide CO2 emissions are measured in BILLIONS of tons (35-40 BILLION). I don't care if the mob breaks out the pitchforks and guillotines for the billionaires. They honestly don't seem like very nice people. However, nobody should believe that 8500 tons is a significant chunk of 35 BILLION. Look at that chart again. Get rid of all air travel, all road transport (trucking and personal), all residential and commercial energy use (air conditioning and heating), and all all iron and steel, and you've only reduced global emissions by about 40%. So we're basically back to the medieval lifestyle, and we're probably going to have a huge increase in burning firewood to stay warm, which reduces the progress. Nonsense like this article isn't useful. People like to think every little bit counts, but it doesn't. People like to think if we just slaughtered the billionaires it'll all get better, but it won't.

nobunaga 2y ago
Actually it would. 2% is a lot in the scheme of things. Every bit counts. And to thin it doesnt or that we need to slash only those things emitting more than X amount is a bit simplistic. Thinking we should just leave billionaies alone and let them do as they wish is nonsense.
- xscott 2y ago
  2% is not a lot. If it takes 50 years of accumulation for things to get bad, saving 2% means it'll be bad in 51 years. And remember, that's for all of the airplanes in all of the world (tens of thousands from commercial alone). The actual savings from Bezos' and Musk's planes is something like 0.000_024 percent. So if it takes 50 years until it gets bad, it'll take about 50 years and 8 minutes after you take away their planes. Whether something counts should be done with math, not feel good sentiment or pandering to people's envy.
  - adrianN 2y ago
    If you group emissions sufficiently finely, no single measure has any effect. We need to do hundreds of little changes to reach carbon neutrality. The discussion what to prioritize is not easy, but dismissing things just because they only contribute x% is not helpful.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - xscott 2y ago
      Please look at that chart and aggressively pick all the items you're going to add up. Prioritize the difficult choices and make the helpful decisions. Focusing on energy CONSUMPTION is a losing battle, you won't even get to 50% in theory, and in practice you'd lose political will as people realize you're taking them back to the stone age. Now look at the chart and focus on energy PRODUCTION. If someone could make enough emission-free electricity, you can get rid of nearly all of it. Except for airplanes, because batteries are heavy - but thankfully that's only 2% and doesn't matter very much. No matter how you slice it or whatever sentimental argument you throw at it, Bezos, Musk, and Taylor's jets don't add up to anything that matters.
      - simgt 2y ago
        It's death by a thousand cuts, with that way of thinking why would we close a single coal plant? Taken in isolation they amount to nothing either. If your argument is "everything but airplanes", it would be interesting to know why you think they are so important? As for energy consumption reduction leading us back to stone age: it's about cutting the excess to keep what matters, no one arguing for it will pretend for a second that the excess stops at stone age level. Thankfully it doesn't even go as far as 250 years ago, when our world was still entirely renewable. If commuting for 50km for work is what matters, cutting the excess means replacing many SUVs by an (electric) bus or a train plus an e-bike. And maybe create jobs or housing closer. Not "not working" or "dying".
        2y ago

by xscott 2y ago

nobunaga 2y ago

Actually it would. 2% is a lot in the scheme of things. Every bit counts. And to thin it doesnt or that we need to slash only those things emitting more than X amount is a bit simplistic. Thinking we should just leave billionaies alone and let them do as they wish is nonsense.

xscott 2y ago
2% is not a lot. If it takes 50 years of accumulation for things to get bad, saving 2% means it'll be bad in 51 years. And remember, that's for all of the airplanes in all of the world (tens of thousands from commercial alone). The actual savings from Bezos' and Musk's planes is something like 0.000_024 percent. So if it takes 50 years until it gets bad, it'll take about 50 years and 8 minutes after you take away their planes. Whether something counts should be done with math, not feel good sentiment or pandering to people's envy.
- adrianN 2y ago
  If you group emissions sufficiently finely, no single measure has any effect. We need to do hundreds of little changes to reach carbon neutrality. The discussion what to prioritize is not easy, but dismissing things just because they only contribute x% is not helpful.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - xscott 2y ago
    Please look at that chart and aggressively pick all the items you're going to add up. Prioritize the difficult choices and make the helpful decisions. Focusing on energy CONSUMPTION is a losing battle, you won't even get to 50% in theory, and in practice you'd lose political will as people realize you're taking them back to the stone age. Now look at the chart and focus on energy PRODUCTION. If someone could make enough emission-free electricity, you can get rid of nearly all of it. Except for airplanes, because batteries are heavy - but thankfully that's only 2% and doesn't matter very much. No matter how you slice it or whatever sentimental argument you throw at it, Bezos, Musk, and Taylor's jets don't add up to anything that matters.
    - simgt 2y ago
      It's death by a thousand cuts, with that way of thinking why would we close a single coal plant? Taken in isolation they amount to nothing either. If your argument is "everything but airplanes", it would be interesting to know why you think they are so important? As for energy consumption reduction leading us back to stone age: it's about cutting the excess to keep what matters, no one arguing for it will pretend for a second that the excess stops at stone age level. Thankfully it doesn't even go as far as 250 years ago, when our world was still entirely renewable. If commuting for 50km for work is what matters, cutting the excess means replacing many SUVs by an (electric) bus or a train plus an e-bike. And maybe create jobs or housing closer. Not "not working" or "dying".
      - 2y ago