3 ms·

Air travel do matter and there is nothing irrational in doing our best to decrease it. Just because Americans first compare it with cars that is the most ineffi

by Ma8ee 13y ago

Air travel do matter and there is nothing irrational in doing our best to decrease it. Just because Americans first compare it with cars that is the most inefficient way to travel doesn't mean that air travel is efficient compared to busses, trains or boats. (Also, 91 passenger miles per gallon is slightly less than me and my wife gets when travelling in our Prius together.) The point is that we have to learn to live with travelling much less. Both me and my wife are scientists, and we have become used to 2-4 intercontinental trips (back and forth) per person and year for conferences and collaborations. That contributes much more to our total carbon footprint than everything else we do summed together. It just have to stop.

Zigurd 13y ago
OK, but that may say more about the limits of carbon reduction in discretionary actions by individual consumers than about air travel as a problem. At some point you have to start transforming the supply balance at a significantly faster pace than demand growth, or you can't make a dent in the absolute components of coal and oil in the energy supply, nor will carbon-conscious consumers like you be able to achieve further savings.
- Ma8ee 13y ago
  We must do both. Of course we need to change how our energy is produced, but we must also decrease the amount of energy we consume at the same time. Otherwise we have no chance to succeed. And of course I am know very well that what I and my wife do is just a piss in the sea. The point is that it is much easier to argue that you should do your part to decrease the amount of greenhouse gases you are responsible for, and even support legislations that forces you to, if we already have done our part and a little more. It would be much easier for the US to ask China to do something about their greenhouse gases if the US per capita emission wasn't something like 4 times as high as China's.

by Ma8ee 13y ago

Zigurd 13y ago

OK, but that may say more about the limits of carbon reduction in discretionary actions by individual consumers than about air travel as a problem. At some point you have to start transforming the supply balance at a significantly faster pace than demand growth, or you can't make a dent in the absolute components of coal and oil in the energy supply, nor will carbon-conscious consumers like you be able to achieve further savings.

Ma8ee 13y ago
We must do both. Of course we need to change how our energy is produced, but we must also decrease the amount of energy we consume at the same time. Otherwise we have no chance to succeed. And of course I am know very well that what I and my wife do is just a piss in the sea. The point is that it is much easier to argue that you should do your part to decrease the amount of greenhouse gases you are responsible for, and even support legislations that forces you to, if we already have done our part and a little more. It would be much easier for the US to ask China to do something about their greenhouse gases if the US per capita emission wasn't something like 4 times as high as China's.