Air travel is such a non issue, for any person flying it will of course be a large part of their carbon footprint, but the atmosphere does not care where the CO2 came from.
This is largely my problem with climate activism. It seems largely based on what's fashionable. For example, ban straws in SF even though all of the ones in the ocean come from another continent[1]. Also stop offering glasses of water because there's a drought (strangely enough the drought ended but of course the laws stick around)[2].
Now a new deal which, even if 100% effective, would only reduce global CO2 emissions by... 15%?!?[3]. To make matters worse, we're 12 years away from point of no return, but we're stubbornly refusing to build a new nuclear power plant even though things are so dire? It strikes me as unserious, happening only for show or other reasons.
What does this have to do with fashion? It makes sense to ban single use plastics.
What are your suggestions? 15% is leaps and bounds better than what anyone but Jay Inslee has suggested. Anyway that’s goddamn AMAZING for a single country.
Also, 12 years is the best case estimate. The worst case is in the past, and I’ve seen good qualified arguments for at most ~4 years before irreversible climate collapse with current technology (the figure I am citing is from speculation that high CO2 levels inhibit cloud formation, but I can’t find the source at the moment, so I encourage your own research to clarify my numbers). We need to try anything and everything in some reasonable order.
The plastic straw ban had almost nothing to do with climate activism, it's just a low priority measure to fight plastic pollution. These two issues are barely related.
What's your point? According to your link aviation emits twice as much CO2 than long distance road travel. Clearly limiting long distance travel would have an impact. Doubly so if aviation was reduced.
Yet many global elites (Obama, Macron, et. al) agree to impose heavy restrictions on vehicle emissions used to feed, transport, and employ the average citizens of their countries. Meanwhile those who can afford it take needless trips across the globe to entertain themselves.
Air travel should be limited to those that have a reason to fly that out weighs the damage it causes to the environment.
The entire aviation industry accounts for about 2.5% of carbon emissions. If we banned air travel entirely it would do approximately nothing to reduce climate change.
The single best thing people can do for the environment is refrain from reproducing, but that's not quite such an emotionally appealing thing to protest about.
Absolutely not... who gets to decide what reason is good enough to fly? How about instead of reducing freedom we stop externalizing these costs, no matter their purpose or industry?
I think aviation is pretty well-suited to carbon taxes/offsets. There are only a few major players and it would be very easy to enforce. Also I think the market would rather easily bear a 30% increase in flight costs
Completely disagree. Airtravel has been consistently growing at 6% for a while now, there's still billions of people waiting in line to get easy access to it.
As your graphic alludes to short distance regional flights can be replaced with a greener alternative, but the vast majority of flights cannot.
Air travel is growing exponentially and we have no way to stop those emissions. Virtually everything else has alternatives, there simply isn't the energy/kg to move airplanes with anything other than petroluem products. Biofuels would be an even worse disaster.
Side note: I just launched a web app for offsetting the emissions you havent been able to reduce— I’d love to hear what you think of it projectwren.com
Email is in profile if you have feedback, the goal is to get more people involved with reversing climate change
dev_dull|6 years ago
Now a new deal which, even if 100% effective, would only reduce global CO2 emissions by... 15%?!?[3]. To make matters worse, we're 12 years away from point of no return, but we're stubbornly refusing to build a new nuclear power plant even though things are so dire? It strikes me as unserious, happening only for show or other reasons.
1. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/90-of-plastic-polluti... 2. https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-aler... 3. https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/emis/top2014.tot
SomeOldThrow|6 years ago
What are your suggestions? 15% is leaps and bounds better than what anyone but Jay Inslee has suggested. Anyway that’s goddamn AMAZING for a single country.
Also, 12 years is the best case estimate. The worst case is in the past, and I’ve seen good qualified arguments for at most ~4 years before irreversible climate collapse with current technology (the figure I am citing is from speculation that high CO2 levels inhibit cloud formation, but I can’t find the source at the moment, so I encourage your own research to clarify my numbers). We need to try anything and everything in some reasonable order.
Fnoord|6 years ago
helkafen|6 years ago
macinjosh|6 years ago
Yet many global elites (Obama, Macron, et. al) agree to impose heavy restrictions on vehicle emissions used to feed, transport, and employ the average citizens of their countries. Meanwhile those who can afford it take needless trips across the globe to entertain themselves.
Air travel should be limited to those that have a reason to fly that out weighs the damage it causes to the environment.
Veen|6 years ago
The single best thing people can do for the environment is refrain from reproducing, but that's not quite such an emotionally appealing thing to protest about.
nrb|6 years ago
opportune|6 years ago
megaremote|6 years ago
Lets ignore all the other environmental costs of vehicles, roads, gas, refineries, deaths, gas stations, and the big one, city sprawl.
Cars are the single worst thing every created, and not just for the environment.
ShorsHammer|6 years ago
As your graphic alludes to short distance regional flights can be replaced with a greener alternative, but the vast majority of flights cannot.
Air travel is growing exponentially and we have no way to stop those emissions. Virtually everything else has alternatives, there simply isn't the energy/kg to move airplanes with anything other than petroluem products. Biofuels would be an even worse disaster.
ArtDev|6 years ago
landon32|6 years ago
Email is in profile if you have feedback, the goal is to get more people involved with reversing climate change