3 ms·

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 argu

by 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".

xscott 2y ago
My argument is not "everything but airplanes". My petty argument is that this article is stupid, and the bigger point is that focusing on the energy consumption side is a dead end. The problem is that EVERY sector is not very significant. That's what that chart shows: Eliminate air travel: 1.9% Eliminate all trucking and cars: 11.9% Eliminate residential heating/cooling: 10.9% Eliminate commercial energy use: 6.6% And so on... If you focus on energy consumption, you can't solve that WITHOUT a thousand cuts, and that's totally unrealistic. And rage bait articles appealing to people's dislike and envy of billionaire airplanes for 0.000024% benefit don't help. Anyone who focuses on that is not using an engineering mindset and is distracted from the goal. Ok, so now look at it from the energy production side. Get real serious about nuclear or wind/solar/batteries (and a few agricultural changes), and you could actually make a difference. This is usually the point where someone says nuclear plants are always over cost and take too long to build, but the US military has hundreds of reactors running safely, and they were constructed for some government definition of "on time". If we were serious about achieving the goal in the US, we'd be pushing for a new branch of the military to manage public reactors or something, or we'd get real serious about batteries. Btw, I fucking hate flying. The experience is miserable, and I can deal with ground/water shipping for anything I buy. It wouldn't change my life one bit if we grounded all the airplanes. But I'm not dumb enough to think that would change anything about the predictions for the climate, and flying has benefits to other people. The point was that you can't really solve air flight with batteries or nuclear power, so thankfully 2% isn't much.
xscott 2y ago
> 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. Look at the chart. Cement, Iron, and Steel are responsible 10.2% of global emissions. Without those, it's almost the definition of stone age. I'm not sure about "renewable", but the world was not zero emissions 250 years ago. There were just fewer people.

by simgt 2y ago

xscott 2y ago

My argument is not "everything but airplanes". My petty argument is that this article is stupid, and the bigger point is that focusing on the energy consumption side is a dead end. The problem is that EVERY sector is not very significant. That's what that chart shows: Eliminate air travel: 1.9% Eliminate all trucking and cars: 11.9% Eliminate residential heating/cooling: 10.9% Eliminate commercial energy use: 6.6% And so on... If you focus on energy consumption, you can't solve that WITHOUT a thousand cuts, and that's totally unrealistic. And rage bait articles appealing to people's dislike and envy of billionaire airplanes for 0.000024% benefit don't help. Anyone who focuses on that is not using an engineering mindset and is distracted from the goal. Ok, so now look at it from the energy production side. Get real serious about nuclear or wind/solar/batteries (and a few agricultural changes), and you could actually make a difference. This is usually the point where someone says nuclear plants are always over cost and take too long to build, but the US military has hundreds of reactors running safely, and they were constructed for some government definition of "on time". If we were serious about achieving the goal in the US, we'd be pushing for a new branch of the military to manage public reactors or something, or we'd get real serious about batteries. Btw, I fucking hate flying. The experience is miserable, and I can deal with ground/water shipping for anything I buy. It wouldn't change my life one bit if we grounded all the airplanes. But I'm not dumb enough to think that would change anything about the predictions for the climate, and flying has benefits to other people. The point was that you can't really solve air flight with batteries or nuclear power, so thankfully 2% isn't much.

xscott 2y ago

> 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. Look at the chart. Cement, Iron, and Steel are responsible 10.2% of global emissions. Without those, it's almost the definition of stone age. I'm not sure about "renewable", but the world was not zero emissions 250 years ago. There were just fewer people.