6 ms·

If you want to reduce air travel for environmental reasons, then tax it more. Shaming individuals doesn't seem to be productive or helpful. Air travel works f

If you want to reduce air travel for environmental reasons, then tax it more. Shaming individuals doesn't seem to be productive or helpful. Air travel works for people if the benefits outweigh the costs. The only thing that changes behavior is to change the costs. And even if costs were 10x there are still plenty of people who will fly tons, because it would still be economically productive. There are always going to be people who fly 10x more than others, because certain jobs and roles simply require it.

gnfargbl 8mo ago
> Shaming individuals doesn't seem to be productive or helpful. I don't see how much support from history for that viewpoint. Some examples of positive societal change driven in part by shaming individuals: drink-driving, civil rights, sexual harassment, automobile safety, the slave trade, McCarthyism.
- eightys3v3n 8mo ago
  All those cases also have huge penalties or effective costs associated with them. Is there an accurate "shame first, then penalties came later" stand point? Automobile safety in my life has only changed after fines. Sexual harrassment still happens and doesn't seem to be helped by shaming someone as much as firing them. Though we often don't have the guts or legal backing to publically shame someone.
- lostlogin 8mo ago
  > drink-driving, civil rights, sexual harassment, automobile safety, the slave trade, McCarthyism. This hasn’t been a good few years for your examples.
lukakopajtic 8mo ago
You wrote one of the solutions as if it conflicts with the other one. Let's raise the tax on an activity according to its negative side effects, while pointing out individuals that do a lot of it and dont take personal responsibility.
- crazygringo 8mo ago
  If you run a company or companies on two coasts and have a wife and family on another continent (say she has her own career and can't move), then what exactly are you supposed to do? I don't know this guy's personal life, but the people I know who fly tons fit into this profile. E.g. the wife can't move because she's a tenured professor at her university, and he's got to be at both offices regularly. He's best qualified to run the company/companies, and he's not going to get divorced to reduce his CO2 emissions. What exactly is the solution you propose? What personal responsibility do you expect them to take? You think he should get divorced? Only see his wife and kids four times a year? Have his company/companies suffer because he can't be there in person? Quit his jobs? And let's be clear, there are lots of jobs that require tons of air travel. If you're a highly specialized repair technician for certain equipment, all you do is constantly fly around the world fixing equipment wherever it is. If you're a CEO of a multinational company, you're constantly flying around to different offices. Are you looking for "personal responsibility" here too? How?
  - titzer 8mo ago
    I can't tell if you're serious or if you really think someone who has a family on another continent and is running two companies on opposite coasts is some kind of victim of their circumstances and needs a special keyboard warrior to comment on HN in support of them, lest they face the consequences of a little more tax that they'll never miss or some social shaming. I'm sorry, I don't want HN to to be the place where we get into a fight over the mildest inconvenience for people who are already living extravagant lifestyles.
    - crazygringo 8mo ago
      I think you've misunderstood me. I suggested raising taxes in the first place. What I'm opposed to is some hand-wavy demand to "take personal responsibility" without suggesting exactly what they're supposed to do and whether any tradeoffs involved are reasonable. And please don't call people names. You can write comments here without calling other people "keyboard warriors". Nor is it helpful to try to shut down some viewpoint by claiming that somebody doesn't need any extra support. And I think most people would consider not seeing their family more than e.g. four times a year more than just the "mildest inconvenience".
tasuki 8mo ago
> Shaming individuals doesn't seem to be productive or helpful. I don't see any shaming. It was all matter of fact, free from judgement.
- crazygringo 8mo ago
  What do you think was the purpose of the comment? Do you think that comparing someone's CO2 emissions with the average and pointing out that it is much higher is value-free, just a totally neutral observation for no reason? That the commenter is fine with it? Or even that it's a good thing?
  - tasuki 8mo ago
    No, it does not mean the commenter is fine with it. Regardless of their feelings, the commenter had the good sense not to include any shaming.
    - crazygringo 8mo ago
      So you think the commenter was neutral? No judgment? Again, what was the purpose of the comment then?
      - tasuki 8mo ago
        What is the purpose of your comment? Are you neutral? No judgement?
        crazygringo 8mo ago
        I asked you first. But I'll also respond to your questions: my purpose is to show that your claim that the original comment was "free from judgement" is wrong. I'm not neutral, I'm attempting to show that your claim is obviously false, that it's not plausible at all. Of course I'm trying to judge a comment that seems wrong. So now that I've replied honestly to your questions, will you reply honestly to mine? Repeating: > So you think the commenter was neutral? No judgment? Again, what was the purpose of the comment then? Because if the purpose wasn't to shame the person for their carbon footprint, I can't imagine what else it possibly could have been.
mahogany 8mo ago
> If you want to reduce air travel for environmental reasons, then tax it more. > Shaming individuals doesn't seem to be productive or helpful. First, none of us have any power to "tax it more" so this is a dead end of discussion. Second, people have agency and we can hold them accountable socially for negative actions even if they are abiding by the current laws (or tax regime). This happens all the time, because laws don't fully align with morality in a culture. Suggesting that we should leave such things to the sole discretion of the economy and taxes describes a strange unhuman-like society that we don't live in.
- BeetleB 7mo ago
  > First, none of us have any power to "tax it more" so this is a dead end of discussion. You probably have more power over that than changing a whole population's behavior. I'd wager you probably have more power over that than changing just one person's behavior (Felix). > Second, people have agency and we can hold them accountable socially for negative actions even if they are abiding by the current laws (or tax regime). And people are holding you accountable for the shaming. This leads primarily to polarization, not change. Polarized folks are more likely to increase the negative behavior.
- azan_ 7mo ago
  > Suggesting that we should leave such things to the sole discretion of the economy and taxes describes a strange unhuman-like society that we don't live in. Well, the choice is: either we leave it to economy and taxes which work, or we'll rely on shaming which doesn't work. To put it another way - it depends if you want to actually fix the problem or just want to have a moral high ground and don't really care about solving the problem.
mym1990 8mo ago
I think a broad tax would just make it more difficult for middle and lower class to fly. Tax the business/first class and frequent flier, but don't push people who can already barely afford to fly out.
- mixmastamyk 8mo ago
  I appreciate this concern, but "poor people exist" is not a valid reason to continue destroying the environment, imho. It's not just people that have to bear the repercussions. That said there are probably some work-arounds, tax free twice a year, tax rebate or some-such.
- azan_ 7mo ago
  > I think a broad tax would just make it more difficult for middle and lower class to fly. Tax the business/first class and frequent flier, but don't push people who can already barely afford to fly out. No, it's the other way around. If flying is bad then poor people absolutely have to be priced out of it. I know that it sounds absolutely awful, but unfortunately taxing just business and first class won't do much for reducing emissions if flying will be affordable for and used by billions of people.

gnfargbl 8mo ago

> Shaming individuals doesn't seem to be productive or helpful. I don't see how much support from history for that viewpoint. Some examples of positive societal change driven in part by shaming individuals: drink-driving, civil rights, sexual harassment, automobile safety, the slave trade, McCarthyism.

eightys3v3n 8mo ago
All those cases also have huge penalties or effective costs associated with them. Is there an accurate "shame first, then penalties came later" stand point? Automobile safety in my life has only changed after fines. Sexual harrassment still happens and doesn't seem to be helped by shaming someone as much as firing them. Though we often don't have the guts or legal backing to publically shame someone.
lostlogin 8mo ago
> drink-driving, civil rights, sexual harassment, automobile safety, the slave trade, McCarthyism. This hasn’t been a good few years for your examples.

lukakopajtic 8mo ago

You wrote one of the solutions as if it conflicts with the other one. Let's raise the tax on an activity according to its negative side effects, while pointing out individuals that do a lot of it and dont take personal responsibility.

crazygringo 8mo ago
If you run a company or companies on two coasts and have a wife and family on another continent (say she has her own career and can't move), then what exactly are you supposed to do? I don't know this guy's personal life, but the people I know who fly tons fit into this profile. E.g. the wife can't move because she's a tenured professor at her university, and he's got to be at both offices regularly. He's best qualified to run the company/companies, and he's not going to get divorced to reduce his CO2 emissions. What exactly is the solution you propose? What personal responsibility do you expect them to take? You think he should get divorced? Only see his wife and kids four times a year? Have his company/companies suffer because he can't be there in person? Quit his jobs? And let's be clear, there are lots of jobs that require tons of air travel. If you're a highly specialized repair technician for certain equipment, all you do is constantly fly around the world fixing equipment wherever it is. If you're a CEO of a multinational company, you're constantly flying around to different offices. Are you looking for "personal responsibility" here too? How?
- titzer 8mo ago
  I can't tell if you're serious or if you really think someone who has a family on another continent and is running two companies on opposite coasts is some kind of victim of their circumstances and needs a special keyboard warrior to comment on HN in support of them, lest they face the consequences of a little more tax that they'll never miss or some social shaming. I'm sorry, I don't want HN to to be the place where we get into a fight over the mildest inconvenience for people who are already living extravagant lifestyles.
  - crazygringo 8mo ago
    I think you've misunderstood me. I suggested raising taxes in the first place. What I'm opposed to is some hand-wavy demand to "take personal responsibility" without suggesting exactly what they're supposed to do and whether any tradeoffs involved are reasonable. And please don't call people names. You can write comments here without calling other people "keyboard warriors". Nor is it helpful to try to shut down some viewpoint by claiming that somebody doesn't need any extra support. And I think most people would consider not seeing their family more than e.g. four times a year more than just the "mildest inconvenience".

tasuki 8mo ago

> Shaming individuals doesn't seem to be productive or helpful. I don't see any shaming. It was all matter of fact, free from judgement.

crazygringo 8mo ago
What do you think was the purpose of the comment? Do you think that comparing someone's CO2 emissions with the average and pointing out that it is much higher is value-free, just a totally neutral observation for no reason? That the commenter is fine with it? Or even that it's a good thing?
- tasuki 8mo ago
  No, it does not mean the commenter is fine with it. Regardless of their feelings, the commenter had the good sense not to include any shaming.
  - crazygringo 8mo ago
    So you think the commenter was neutral? No judgment? Again, what was the purpose of the comment then?
    - tasuki 8mo ago
      What is the purpose of your comment? Are you neutral? No judgement?
      - crazygringo 8mo ago
        I asked you first. But I'll also respond to your questions: my purpose is to show that your claim that the original comment was "free from judgement" is wrong. I'm not neutral, I'm attempting to show that your claim is obviously false, that it's not plausible at all. Of course I'm trying to judge a comment that seems wrong. So now that I've replied honestly to your questions, will you reply honestly to mine? Repeating: > So you think the commenter was neutral? No judgment? Again, what was the purpose of the comment then? Because if the purpose wasn't to shame the person for their carbon footprint, I can't imagine what else it possibly could have been.

mahogany 8mo ago

> If you want to reduce air travel for environmental reasons, then tax it more. > Shaming individuals doesn't seem to be productive or helpful. First, none of us have any power to "tax it more" so this is a dead end of discussion. Second, people have agency and we can hold them accountable socially for negative actions even if they are abiding by the current laws (or tax regime). This happens all the time, because laws don't fully align with morality in a culture. Suggesting that we should leave such things to the sole discretion of the economy and taxes describes a strange unhuman-like society that we don't live in.

BeetleB 7mo ago
> First, none of us have any power to "tax it more" so this is a dead end of discussion. You probably have more power over that than changing a whole population's behavior. I'd wager you probably have more power over that than changing just one person's behavior (Felix). > Second, people have agency and we can hold them accountable socially for negative actions even if they are abiding by the current laws (or tax regime). And people are holding you accountable for the shaming. This leads primarily to polarization, not change. Polarized folks are more likely to increase the negative behavior.
azan_ 7mo ago
> Suggesting that we should leave such things to the sole discretion of the economy and taxes describes a strange unhuman-like society that we don't live in. Well, the choice is: either we leave it to economy and taxes which work, or we'll rely on shaming which doesn't work. To put it another way - it depends if you want to actually fix the problem or just want to have a moral high ground and don't really care about solving the problem.

mym1990 8mo ago

I think a broad tax would just make it more difficult for middle and lower class to fly. Tax the business/first class and frequent flier, but don't push people who can already barely afford to fly out.

mixmastamyk 8mo ago
I appreciate this concern, but "poor people exist" is not a valid reason to continue destroying the environment, imho. It's not just people that have to bear the repercussions. That said there are probably some work-arounds, tax free twice a year, tax rebate or some-such.
azan_ 7mo ago
> I think a broad tax would just make it more difficult for middle and lower class to fly. Tax the business/first class and frequent flier, but don't push people who can already barely afford to fly out. No, it's the other way around. If flying is bad then poor people absolutely have to be priced out of it. I know that it sounds absolutely awful, but unfortunately taxing just business and first class won't do much for reducing emissions if flying will be affordable for and used by billions of people.