Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 325 posts

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#51

Post by maximente »

martamoreno2 wrote: post #8

2.5% eh? We should all immediately stop flying... This is outrageous. Just imagine, 2.5%!! But on a more serious note, this article is again wrong, like so many others about climate change. Being a combination of clickbait and false assumptions, it fails to miss the point entirely that first, 2.5% are irrelevant, but also that it makes no sense whatsoever to tackle this now. The technology is just not there yet. What…

yeah, betting on technology to solve immediate existential problems given minimal precedent isn't naive or anything. go ahead and post the projections on increased battery capacity, how we're going to find the rare earth material for constructing them all, and how clean tech will magically materialize that will not spike emissions while we build tons of magical unicorn stuff to save the world.

you're the naive one, not whoever you're calling out here.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#52

Post by quotemstr »

There's a cavernous gap between the apocalyptic rhetoric from climate activists and the brittle, ineffective policy they actually promote. If climate activists really believed that climate change were a near-term catastrophic threat, they'd jump on the change to reduce emissions using whatever techniques and technology worked. "Geoengineering? Great! Nuclear power? Great!" --- that's what someone genuinely concerned about the climate would say.

Instead, climate activists promote a very narrow Utopian vision and work against everything that falls outside this vision. These activists don't really care about the environment: they're using climate activism as a pretext for advancing some Utopian project and putting themselves in charge of how we all live. These people are discrediting all climate science in the eyes of regular people.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#53

Post by pound »

mfer wrote: post #12
munk-a wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eeeeh, it depends. People in the US are going to go totally librarian poo if someone comes to take away their cars.

The people of the US won't if.... 1. The alternative's include things they can own and control. This is really important in rural or suburban areas. It's also important for a lot of businesses. 2. The alternative's are handled in a cost effective rollout manner. Basically, the solutions need to be in the public interest with them in mind. Not sure how that factors into startup and VC thinking these days. I would imag…

Unfortunately public transit contradicts that "they can own and control" part above.

For many in US just the idea of sharing a space with strangers is revolting. Same applies to dense living.

And that brings another question: how would you have effective public transit system in suburban sprawl?

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#54

Post by wallace_f »

pilsetnieks wrote: post #50
wallace_f wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't do math, don't question the dogma, and don't bet against markets. Coastal florida prices are skyrocketing because underwater real estate is just gonna' be the new trend. And Holland is leading the world in supposed refugees of underwater refugees. I'm incapable of thinking for myself and believe everyhing I'm told. Let's go to war again in the Middle East! Better downvote this comment for offending your regurgi…

Just so you know, I'm downvoting this comment instead for being an inane rant without presenting a rational argument.

Unfortunartely, becoming sloth is always easier than confronting reality unless you're forced not to.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#55

Post by usaar333 »

misiti3780 wrote: post #2

"Over all, air travel accounts for about 2.5 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions — a far smaller share than emissions from passenger cars or power plants." 2.5% means we should focus on reducing somewhere else in the near term.

It's the high growth rate that is the issue, not the existing amount.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#56

Post by holler »

munk-a wrote: post #9
DisruptiveDave wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Telecom technology has matured enough to make personal presence unnecessary Holy moly that's sad if anyone actually believes this.

I actually believe this, could you maybe expand on for what interactions you think personal presence is still necessary and adds real value?

the visceral human experience brought about by the complex interaction of each sense combining together. For example when when you're standing on a cliff overlooking the majestic ocean, eyes absorbing the light as it reflects off the water and the sky, listening to the waves as they crash against the rocks, smelling the distinct salty coastal essence, and observing the cool wind flowing about your limbs. This complex interaction is soothing and cathartic, and leaves an imprint on the soul.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#58

Post by umvi »

jcims wrote: post #40
martamoreno2 wrote: post #8

2.5% eh? We should all immediately stop flying... This is outrageous. Just imagine, 2.5%!! But on a more serious note, this article is again wrong, like so many others about climate change. Being a combination of clickbait and false assumptions, it fails to miss the point entirely that first, 2.5% are irrelevant, but also that it makes no sense whatsoever to tackle this now. The technology is just not there yet. What…

What's the basic energy equation of sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere using state of the art today? In say megawatt hours per gigaton?

> What's the basic energy equation of sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere using state of the art today?

Current state-of-the-art has the following equation[1]:

6CO2 + 6H20 + (photons) → C6H12O6 + 6O2

(sorry, I couldn't help myself, the setup was too good) But seriously, I doubt we can beat plants in terms of carbon sequestration efficiency.

[1] https://sciencing.com/photosynthesis-equation-6962557.html

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#59

Post by habnds »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #31
martamoreno2 wrote: post #8

2.5% eh? We should all immediately stop flying... This is outrageous. Just imagine, 2.5%!! But on a more serious note, this article is again wrong, like so many others about climate change. Being a combination of clickbait and false assumptions, it fails to miss the point entirely that first, 2.5% are irrelevant, but also that it makes no sense whatsoever to tackle this now. The technology is just not there yet. What…

What if said super batteries and efficient sequestration never develop? Why isn't creating lower emission power supplies on your list? I understand that the batteries save green power for when it can't be produced, but if we could find other, better, low or zero emission power sources, wouldn't that be just as good? I'm just confused why those are the two must have technologies, which don't yet exist, and not others,…

because that would require a change in personal behavior while the carbon sucking option means it's some scientist's problem and they have no personal responsibility

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#60

Post by habnds »

ahelwer wrote: post #17

It is an interesting exercise to ask people to imagine a world without air travel. Where you can't just appear halfway around the world at the drop of a hat. Travel again becomes the domain of boats & trains. To almost anyone you talk to, banning air travel sounds completely ridiculous. In reality it wouldn't be enough by itself. It's on the lower end of action that is required.

if prices accurately reflected costs not flying would start to seem a lot more practical
Post reply on HN