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

121–130 of 325 posts

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#121

Post by eisa01 »

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.

The thing is, very few things is a large share of global carbon dioxide emissions.

"It doesn't matter what Norway does because we're less than 1% of global emission" "It doesn't matter with air travel because it's only 2.5% of emissions" "It doesn't matter with coal power in Germany, because overall it's not that much"

If the rest of the world has that attitude, it won't matter if China and the US (often cited as the ones that matter) get to zero, as that's still not enough.

CO2 emissions is death by a 1000 papercuts, we need to tackle them all

So yes, let's bring aviation under carbon tax and/or cap and trade schemes, then people can decide how much they're willing to pay for these emissions compared to other sector emissions. I would guess travel is something people value and would be willing to pay for, until there are better solutions available

Note: I say this as someone that travel quite a bit for work and leisure - I would definitely be penalized if I have to pay for my emissions

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#122

Post by wallace_f »

funklute wrote: post #45
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…

I have no idea what you are trying to say with this...

Don't worry, someone replied with an entire comment of simple ad hominen attacks and you can conveniently lean on those to make you feel more comfortable in your worldviews.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#123

Post by kaybe »

phkahler wrote: post #68
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.

Air travel is more important because of the water vapor far more than the carbon. The week following 9/11 was dramatically different. NASA recorded the change in daily temperature range. Less significantly, we had crystal clear skys where I live - for a week! Water vapor can also seed cloud formation. Air travel causes a daily cycle in this, which might just keep more heat in at night. You can look at data and see th…

At least the water issue goes away as soon as you stop.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#124

Post by TeMPOraL »

_Microft wrote: post #92
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…

Here's two questions for you which are not hard to answer but, frankly, I do not expect to read the answers here. Why? Because it would show how utterly wrong the suggestion of carbon sequestration for solving this problem was. First: how much mass (i.e. kg or tons) of C0_2 is emitted per year? Second: what is the total mass of concrete produced per year worldwide? (This is only an exercise to give parent poster an i…

Re your first question, quick googling suggests some 37 billion tons of CO₂ per year. So sure, that's a lot. But then again, not that lot.

Instead of asking questions, why don't you tell us why we couldn't possibly sequester that much carbon annually? How big is the divide between what we could do and what needs to be done?

(I must say the idea of sequestering carbon seems emotionally appealing to me because it turns the problem into something much more tangible. You're not going to get people to cut their CO₂ emissions enough to matter without pushing for a strong emission taxing (which I'm also a fan of). Lowering your living standards doesn't feel like it's accomplishing much vs. the pain involved. Sequestering CO₂ would turn the problem into a numbers game, "how many tons is our country pulling out of the atmosphere, and where do we throw the money to get that number up?".)

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#125

Post by yongjik »

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.

I don't think so - 2.5% is pretty significant. We only have to divide the total global emission into 40 pieces before each piece fall below 2.5%. Or, considering that total US emission is 14% of the world (2017), you just have to divide the whole nation into six sectors and claim each and every one is not significant enough, so that we have to focus on "something else". There's always some "something else".

Of course we have to be smart about our efforts, but it's time we stopped passing the buck around.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#126

Post by blondie9x »

yashap wrote: post #23
maxaf wrote: post #3

Stop fucking flying everywhere. If you think you have to travel far enough to justify a flight, think again. Do you really have to be there in person? Telecom technology has matured enough to make personal presence unnecessary. Your instagram vacation can wait until we have cleaner travel tech.

As noted in this article, aviation is responsible for just 2.5% of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions. To put that number into perspective, cars are responsible for about 10x that. If everyone stopped flying today, the impact on climate change would be almost nothing. If everyone stopped driving, the impact would be huge. Furthermore, there are very few good alternatives to flying if you actually need to get somewher…

The biggest challenge is short flights. Those under 3 hours. These are terrible for the environment on a per mile basis. The problem is that short flights being cheap is often an excuse for not building trains that could compete and exceed efficiency of air travel. Look at SF to LA project and the amount of flights along that route.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#127

Post by gcheong »

jonsen wrote: post #27

It’s a rich world which can afford constantly having several million of its people sitting in a chair elevated six miles.

Deregulation of the airlines put air travel within reach of regular people to the point where it is now a commodity and nobody cares about anything but getting the cheapest flight. Growing up it was unusual for my parents to take a flight anywhere for vacation. Even by themselves. Nowadays it seems unusual for people not to take the entire family even overseas for a jaunt. Which certainly makes our lives richer. Time will tell if we can find a balance to the costs incurred.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#129

Post by [deleted] »

pera wrote: post #73
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.

If you think 2.5% is too small to care, consider what would your company do for an extra +2.5% of annual net profit.

[deleted]

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#130

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

tombert wrote: post #86

I fly fairly frequently to California from NY for work, lately after reading a few articles like this, I wonder if I should put my foot down to my manager and tell them that I'm not going to anymore until flying is less terrible for the atmosphere. I don't think I'll be fired for that, and even if I were I'd probably be able to find another job without too much trouble at this point, but I feel a bit bad for people d…

I’d probably start with raising the corner with the manager.

There could be a cost saving in reducing flights as well, so the issue could be framed a way the presents multiple benefits.

Post reply on HN