Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions • Hacker News Board

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#211

Post by mehrdadn » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 8:55 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #190

mehrdadn wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely tax it, but I actually view a lot of the business travel as unnecessary compared to consumer travel, and that's what I'd want to get rid of first with a tax. I'm far more sympathetic to people trying to see their dying uncles or attend their sister's wedding or visiting their parents once a year than, say, professionals "needing" to attend conferences or whatever. Heck, come to think of it, if I ever saw a…

Vastly more business travel is done for sales or sales-support purposes than attending conference purposes. Humans are tribal animals; we respond to communications in person better than over video conference and we tend to trust people with whom we've shared meals and drinks. Arguing that that just shouldn't be isn't likely to change anything about business behavior. I get on airplanes across oceans because it's effe…

Well, to be blunt, so what? That sucks for sales stuff, it's not like I said conferences are the only things that need to change. Maybe the practices there need to change there just like for conferences and other stuff. Nobody said it's easy or nice or effective or whatever for humans to do long distance. Just that you need to start sacrificing somewhere and I sure as heck find it more reasonable and humane to start at business sales trips than family visits.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#212

Post by m4rtink » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 8:56 PM UTC

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, this seems to me like the only real no bloody solution of this problem. It basically boils down to energy - we need to have a lot more from sources that don't produce CO2 - likely massive solar or nuclear deployments.

Once you have that, not just CO2 capture but many other similar problmes are quite easy to solve without having to put pressure on people to change the way of their live.

You can even periodically turn part of the captured CO2 into jet fuel, effectively making all planes battery powered (with Earth's atmosphere being the battery).

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#213

Post by newnewpdro » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 8:57 PM UTC

When interpreting statements like "Over all, air travel accounts for about 2.5 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions", keep in mind that air travel emissions are higher impact due to occurring in the upper atmosphere. The commonly established multiplier is 2.7X [0].

So while the claim is 2.5% of global co2 emissions, in terms of impact it's more like ~6.7%.

And growing, largely just so people can take selfies in different places, which are then used to promote more travel via social media.

We need to tax fuel used for international air travel. The Chicago Convention [1] may have made sense in establishing the industry but we're well past that point now. Make this high-speed, high-impact transportation method high-cost so it's used less frivolously.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypermobility_(travel)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Convention_on_Internat...

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#214

Post by bt848 » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 8:57 PM UTC

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #200

Supermancho wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It certainly is not the case that 15 ships emit more carbon than all cars. That is correct. However, the pollutants that the referenced ships produce are far more hazardous (immediately) and in greater volumes than many countries produce (in aggregate) per year. To put it in perspective...warning: this is an analogy that mixes metaphors: Talking about CO2 emissions while Nuclear Waste is constantly being pumped int…

I don't follow what you're saying. Is it that other emissions than CO2 are more important to fight? Well, that change is already happening with the ongoing big change towards LNG as the preferred fuel for shipping. But when it comes to reducing CO2 emissions, outside of improving energy efficiency, it seems nobody has anything even remotely viable today. That goes both for deep sea shipping and for most air travel.

There's always sailing, although it's a bit laborious, and fission has a good record at sea :-)

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#215

Post by munk-a » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 8:57 PM UTC

jjoonathan wrote: post #26

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.

I will happily continue to vote for and fund our over-budget under-delivering mass transit projects, even though I (and the overwhelming majority of people providing said funding) won't be in a position to actually use them for the foreseeable future, because it's the right thing to do. However, if someone tries to take my car before those alternatives are in place, we're going to have a problem. My problem will be g…

I absolutely agree, taking away private transit just isn't a workable solution with how people live and commute right now - and I wasn't advocating for anything of the kind, just pointing out that considering reducing private transit is absolutely off the table right now socially.

I use and love public transit and would love to see downtown car free zones that help encourage transit usage and phase out the need to have a car - I wouldn't love to see everyone's car instantly impounded.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#216

Post by sokoloff » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 8:58 PM UTC

jsingleton wrote: post #135

TeMPOraL wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Business clients wouldn't mind that much. But it would kill a good chunk of tourism industry (and good riddance). Tickets for leisure flights are ridiculously cheap nowadays.

I'm taking the train for my next holiday and it is significantly more expensive. Flying is unreasonably cheap. Aviation fuel needs to be taxed but this has to be done everywhere to avoid refuelling in havens. Or maybe tax stands at airports if that can't be done.

Jets are not going to tanker fuel in significant quantities over anything approaching a reasonable level of taxation differences. It would be extremely rare for a medium-haul jet to even be able to tanker fuel for a round trip and impossible for any of the long-haul routes.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#217

Post by konschubert » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 8:59 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #190

mehrdadn wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely tax it, but I actually view a lot of the business travel as unnecessary compared to consumer travel, and that's what I'd want to get rid of first with a tax. I'm far more sympathetic to people trying to see their dying uncles or attend their sister's wedding or visiting their parents once a year than, say, professionals "needing" to attend conferences or whatever. Heck, come to think of it, if I ever saw a…

Vastly more business travel is done for sales or sales-support purposes than attending conference purposes. Humans are tribal animals; we respond to communications in person better than over video conference and we tend to trust people with whom we've shared meals and drinks. Arguing that that just shouldn't be isn't likely to change anything about business behavior. I get on airplanes across oceans because it's effe…

Of course you are right. That's why a certificate trade is needed, to maintain a level the playing field between you and your competitors.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#218

Post by loeg » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 8:59 PM UTC

mehrdadn wrote: post #170

loeg wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Price in the carbon and let consumers decide if they still need the travel. I expect a carbon offset tax wouldn't actually decrease air travel that much -- there's so much business travel that needs doing -- but it probably would slow down growth.

Definitely tax it, but I actually view a lot of the business travel as unnecessary compared to consumer travel, and that's what I'd want to get rid of first with a tax. I'm far more sympathetic to people trying to see their dying uncles or attend their sister's wedding or visiting their parents once a year than, say, professionals "needing" to attend conferences or whatever. Heck, come to think of it, if I ever saw a…

I don't really support arbitrary penalties on certain classes of travelers or banning, e.g., business class. Note that the corresponding inefficiency would be priced in to the carbon offset tax and business and first class travelers would still be paying their larger portion of the carbon externality.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#219

Post by js8 » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 8:59 PM UTC

blunte wrote: post #136

If you need to travel long distances, there's little substitute for an airplane. If air travel accounts for less emissions than passenger cars, and if the top 15 polluting large container ships produce as much (noxious oxides of nitrogen and sulphur) pollution as all cars, then we need to fix shipping first. And if you look at a lot of the crap that is being shipped, it's stuff we just don't need. A lot of things are…

Actually, there are substitutes. People who need to travel (and most of them don't) can just use trains or ships, and make the overall stay longer (decreasing overall number of trips). It was already possible more than 100 years ago, and it would be much less of a problem in today's digital economy.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#220

Post by munk-a » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 8:59 PM UTC

phil248 wrote: post #198

munk-a wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Many, many sales people would say... sales.

Is sales worth it? It's a huge drain on productivity already since the most effective sales techniques revolve around annoying people until they buy something to shut you up, why should we let this market segment continue if it's got even more externalities associated with it?