4 ms·

Now imagine how much pollution from the airline industry costs public health ...

by PeterStuer 2y ago

xyst 2y ago
Or superfluous private jet usage by executives “super commuting” between states …
- gruez 2y ago
  For all the flak that CEOs and taylor swift gets, their contribution to global warming is a drop in a bucket (percentage of aviation emissions that can be attributed to private jets), of a bucket that's being dumped in the ocean (percentage of global warming that can be attributed to aviation). They produce outsized emissions on a personal basis, but there's also so few jets relative to commercial airlines that banning them isn't going to make a dent.
  - callc 2y ago
    Every bit counts. And to make a dent, start with the things with outsized effects with simple alternatives. It’s easy to make laws about it: - private jets/charters: only allowed if have enough passengers (calculate the CO2/person) - old cars - illegal if don’t pass emissions check
    - gruez 2y ago
      >Every bit counts. "every bit" also costs political capital. Making any sort of change is going to cause a stir, and if you're going to cause a political shitshow, you might as well get good returns for it. Causing a political shitshow, but only making a modest impact is the worst outcome. Just look at the pasty tax in the UK[1]. The government proposed a change to the VAT rules that would have made a minimal fiscal impact, but generated so much flak that they were forced to back down. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasty_tax#Aftermath https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasty_tax#Aftermath >start with the things with outsized effects with simple alternatives. The examples you gave all cause disproportionate harm to a small group, which will raise a stink to their local representative, especially if they're being singled out. An across the board carbon tax avoids both these problems.
- kjkjadksj 2y ago
  How about flying the jet 5 minutes to another airfield in the same city?
faraixyz 2y ago
According to the paper, the public health cost from data centers is 1/3 of the road transportation emissions of California. The tool they used (https://www.epa.gov/cobra https://www.epa.gov/cobra) to calculate the emissions impact doesn’t have aviation emissions.
- PeterStuer 2y ago
  Following from your model California is responsible for roughly 9.6% of the total road transportation emissions in the U.S > So 1/3rd of that is 3.2% . So road transportation's health cost is roughly 30x higher than datacenters'. Aviation, while extremely polluting (~9%), is also dwarfed by road transport due to the latter's shear volume Another thing to observe: The paper's claims are based on a McKinsey projection to 2030 that assumes 'a strong decrease of road transport emissions' and a 'surging demand for AI data centers' that 'outweighs power plants emission efficiency improvement'. Contrast this to today where energy estimates are 2% for datacenters vs. 80% for road transport. Guess what is causing more outweighing of power plant emission efficiency improvement as that fleet of cars, trucks and lorries is electrifying (the reason for McKinsey's reduction projection)? Now I'm not saying we should let data-centers get a free pass. Pollution is a serious problem. But in terms of priorities, curbing datacenters might not be the number one concern.

Now imagine how much pollution from the airline industry costs public health ...

xyst 2y ago

Or superfluous private jet usage by executives “super commuting” between states …

gruez 2y ago
For all the flak that CEOs and taylor swift gets, their contribution to global warming is a drop in a bucket (percentage of aviation emissions that can be attributed to private jets), of a bucket that's being dumped in the ocean (percentage of global warming that can be attributed to aviation). They produce outsized emissions on a personal basis, but there's also so few jets relative to commercial airlines that banning them isn't going to make a dent.
- callc 2y ago
  Every bit counts. And to make a dent, start with the things with outsized effects with simple alternatives. It’s easy to make laws about it: - private jets/charters: only allowed if have enough passengers (calculate the CO2/person) - old cars - illegal if don’t pass emissions check
  - gruez 2y ago
    >Every bit counts. "every bit" also costs political capital. Making any sort of change is going to cause a stir, and if you're going to cause a political shitshow, you might as well get good returns for it. Causing a political shitshow, but only making a modest impact is the worst outcome. Just look at the pasty tax in the UK[1]. The government proposed a change to the VAT rules that would have made a minimal fiscal impact, but generated so much flak that they were forced to back down. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasty_tax#Aftermath https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasty_tax#Aftermath >start with the things with outsized effects with simple alternatives. The examples you gave all cause disproportionate harm to a small group, which will raise a stink to their local representative, especially if they're being singled out. An across the board carbon tax avoids both these problems.
kjkjadksj 2y ago
How about flying the jet 5 minutes to another airfield in the same city?

faraixyz 2y ago

According to the paper, the public health cost from data centers is 1/3 of the road transportation emissions of California. The tool they used (https://www.epa.gov/cobra https://www.epa.gov/cobra) to calculate the emissions impact doesn’t have aviation emissions.

PeterStuer 2y ago
Following from your model California is responsible for roughly 9.6% of the total road transportation emissions in the U.S > So 1/3rd of that is 3.2% . So road transportation's health cost is roughly 30x higher than datacenters'. Aviation, while extremely polluting (~9%), is also dwarfed by road transport due to the latter's shear volume Another thing to observe: The paper's claims are based on a McKinsey projection to 2030 that assumes 'a strong decrease of road transport emissions' and a 'surging demand for AI data centers' that 'outweighs power plants emission efficiency improvement'. Contrast this to today where energy estimates are 2% for datacenters vs. 80% for road transport. Guess what is causing more outweighing of power plant emission efficiency improvement as that fleet of cars, trucks and lorries is electrifying (the reason for McKinsey's reduction projection)? Now I'm not saying we should let data-centers get a free pass. Pollution is a serious problem. But in terms of priorities, curbing datacenters might not be the number one concern.