3 ms·
It will only be awkward and uncomfortable for those who can’t afford business class and not flying in low cost airlines. So basically, it’s the same way it ha
by fipar 2y ago
It will only be awkward and uncomfortable for those who can’t afford business class and not flying in low cost airlines.
So basically, it’s the same way it has always been, since we’re in the climate change situation because of rich countries, and I don’t think a lot of us in poor countries care to stop producing CO2, it’s our turn now.
“Everything is gonna burn, we’ll all take turns, I’ll get mine too”
- rafaelmn 2y agoI mean if all you care about is greenhouse emissions this still works - leess flying is less flying.
- fipar 2y agoWell, point is that as long as there's enough demand from people who can afford to fly, this won't mean less flying, or at least not significantly less flying, but it will mean even more inequality. I just don't think this is an easy thing to resolve.
- aziaziazi 2y ago> I don’t think a lot of us in poor countries care to stop producing CO2 I’m not sure about the situation everywhere but China gouvernement seems to care more than most other countries, rich or not. They flew a commercial plane with SAF in September. I personally think SAF is a terrible idea but give them credits for willingness.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 2y agoCurious: Why is SAF a terrible idea? I don't think we're going to be able to electrify long-distance flights any time soon, and SAF seems like the most sensible solution that's actually available.
- aziaziazi 2y agoSAF production is in direct competition against food production for water and space. They also generate a lot of CO2e because moving stuff long distance and/or via air require a lot of energy. SAF didn’t change anything here. I’m sure the claimed 85% CO2 reduction can be "proved" by analyzing choosen aspect while ignoring others. I really trust the willingness of the executives at work but understand they’re biased to continue A.business B.lifestyle. Most executives are over optimistic of what they’re doing because that’s a good think for their business. I don’t blame.
- fipar 2y agoYou are correct in part but I think not in whole, since I said "a lot of us" and I'm pretty sure people in China would continue driving ICE and flying if it was up to them, the changes are just imposed top-down. I'm glad when an authoritarian regime does something that ends up being good but 1) I still dislike the regime, and 2) I don't think that's something you can rely on. Plus I'm pretty sure (just like everyone else) they're doing this not to avoid climate change but because they have a huge opportunity coming out ahead as providers of cleaner means of transportation (IMHO they already kick ass in EVs and will be the dominant player in this market). But your point stands and has a lot of merit. What remains of my point is that I suspect most people in China wouldn't care about CO2 if up to them, and most of the rest of the poor/undeveloped countries will continue to not care.
- acdha 2y ago> Plus I'm pretty sure (just like everyone else) they're doing this not to avoid climate change but because they have a huge opportunity coming out ahead as providers of cleaner means of transportation I detest the authoritarian government but in this case it’s hard to feel bad if it actually works. Our strategy of letting hordes of MBAs optimize for the quarterly report is racking up future costs and unfortunately I don’t think we have the luxury of being picky about who’s going in the right direction here.
- aziaziazi 2y agoTotally agree! I’m frightened by what’s coming next.