6 ms·

> 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. Only if you simplify everything beyond

by Timon3 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. Only if you simplify everything beyond all measures. But the climate is a little more complicated than "we can only emit X more tons before things get bad". As an example, there are feedback loops that accelerate climate change once hit. Over time this amplifies the effect of any reduction we achieve now. Also, the more time we have to "find a solution" as many people bet on, the more of our current biosphere will survive. Aside from any moral obligations, this is obviously in our best interest as it increases the chances of more humans surviving. Even if you argue against these points, there are many others - none included in the math you've done.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
xscott 2y ago
I don't think you understood the argument. I rounded up to 2% to give the most possible benefit of the doubt that anything involving airplane flights matters. Do you really think that saving .000024% by getting rid of Bezos and Musk's jets is going to delay that complicated feedback loop and buy someone the time to save the world? Do you really think 2% is going to delay anything significantly? Because I don't see how you can "it's complicated" your way into that belief.
- Timon3 2y ago
  No, I'm pretty sure I understand your argument perfectly well: by removing any nuance and simplifying the model beyond belief you show that changes have no effect. When adding that nuance back in, suddenly the effect comes back. > Do you really think 2% is going to delay anything significantly? As soon as you define "significantly", I'll gladly answer your question.
  - xscott 2y ago
    My back of the napkin example chose 50 years because it made the numbers round. Let's pick more relevant numbers. The Paris Climate goals are to keep the increase under 2C, and depending on what IPCC model you believe, it looks like we'll blow through that goal in about 25 years (2050). So now, assuming you get to take all airplanes out of the skies, not just Bezos and Musk's, and you save 2% on emissions because of it. How many years does 2% buy you past 2050? I would consider 10 years significant, 1 year certainly is not. If your answer isn't measured in years, possibly with a confidence interval, we'll both know this is more of you trying to "win" an internet discussion by arguing in bad faith.
    - Timon3 2y ago
      You're deliberately looking at the wrong aspect and once again reducing a complex issue to a simple number. The question isn't "how many years does this give us until we reach an arbitrary goal", it's "what effect does the additional time have?". We're currently experiencing a mass extinction only rivaled by previous incredibly catastrophic events. Even a single year could mean whole ecosystems collapsing or not collapsing. If we find a technological solution for climate change in 2050, but critical species went extinct due to overheating in 2049, the 2% air emissions will be the difference between billions of people dying or not dying. I don't know how to quantify these risks, and apparently neither do you. But that doesn't mean we can ignore them when we consider the best course of action. It only means: your model is insufficient and simplifies things beyond reason.
      - xscott 2y ago
        I doubt you believe 2% is going to save billions of lives because of a tipping point in 2049. That's another bad faith argument, but go ahead and ground all the aircraft. No skin off my back. The reason for pointing out insignificant things is so that people aren't distracted from the significant things. "It's complicated." So go ahead and keep everyone worrying about Taylor Swift's jet. Create a carbon tax for billionaires. Offset the emissions, or whatever. But you aren't looking at things that could actually make a difference.

by Timon3 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

xscott 2y ago

I don't think you understood the argument. I rounded up to 2% to give the most possible benefit of the doubt that anything involving airplane flights matters. Do you really think that saving .000024% by getting rid of Bezos and Musk's jets is going to delay that complicated feedback loop and buy someone the time to save the world? Do you really think 2% is going to delay anything significantly? Because I don't see how you can "it's complicated" your way into that belief.

Timon3 2y ago
No, I'm pretty sure I understand your argument perfectly well: by removing any nuance and simplifying the model beyond belief you show that changes have no effect. When adding that nuance back in, suddenly the effect comes back. > Do you really think 2% is going to delay anything significantly? As soon as you define "significantly", I'll gladly answer your question.
- xscott 2y ago
  My back of the napkin example chose 50 years because it made the numbers round. Let's pick more relevant numbers. The Paris Climate goals are to keep the increase under 2C, and depending on what IPCC model you believe, it looks like we'll blow through that goal in about 25 years (2050). So now, assuming you get to take all airplanes out of the skies, not just Bezos and Musk's, and you save 2% on emissions because of it. How many years does 2% buy you past 2050? I would consider 10 years significant, 1 year certainly is not. If your answer isn't measured in years, possibly with a confidence interval, we'll both know this is more of you trying to "win" an internet discussion by arguing in bad faith.
  - Timon3 2y ago
    You're deliberately looking at the wrong aspect and once again reducing a complex issue to a simple number. The question isn't "how many years does this give us until we reach an arbitrary goal", it's "what effect does the additional time have?". We're currently experiencing a mass extinction only rivaled by previous incredibly catastrophic events. Even a single year could mean whole ecosystems collapsing or not collapsing. If we find a technological solution for climate change in 2050, but critical species went extinct due to overheating in 2049, the 2% air emissions will be the difference between billions of people dying or not dying. I don't know how to quantify these risks, and apparently neither do you. But that doesn't mean we can ignore them when we consider the best course of action. It only means: your model is insufficient and simplifies things beyond reason.
    - xscott 2y ago
      I doubt you believe 2% is going to save billions of lives because of a tipping point in 2049. That's another bad faith argument, but go ahead and ground all the aircraft. No skin off my back. The reason for pointing out insignificant things is so that people aren't distracted from the significant things. "It's complicated." So go ahead and keep everyone worrying about Taylor Swift's jet. Create a carbon tax for billionaires. Offset the emissions, or whatever. But you aren't looking at things that could actually make a difference.