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

31–40 of 325 posts

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#31

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

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, which also have yet to exist on the scale we need.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#32

Post by nkohari »

funklute wrote: post #21
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…

Any time someone actually does the math on sucking carbon out of the atmosphere, it seemingly becomes clear that it is simply not scalable to suck the carbon out of the atmosphere. Have you done the math, and if so, why is everyone who comes to the aforementioned conclusion wrong?

There is an argument that it will become cheaper if more investment flows into the technology. For example, when solar power was originally conceived it wasn't cost-effective, but over the years it has seen tremendous gains in efficiency.

That said, I'm not educated on the topic well enough to say whether this argument applies to carbon sequestration.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#33

Post by taylortrusty »

Symmetry wrote: post #6
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 depends on who you are. The median person doesn't fly. But a round trip flight from Shanghai to New York is 3.4 tons of carbon, pretty close to the average global anual per capita emissions of 4.0 tons.

You need to divide that 3.4 tons of carbon by the ~270 people on each flight

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#34

Post by read_if_gay_ »

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?

Seeing family or friends and like, you know, maybe something like doing stuff together?

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#35

Post by groby_b »

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?

* Any kind of actual personal interactions. I'm not going to kiss my wife over VC, or hug my dad, or be at my cousins birthday.

* Any kind of deeply nuanced conversation. Telepresence is great for the day-to-day stuff, but not if you actually need to be closely aware of the other person's emotional state.

* Anything intended to foster closer bonds. That's much harder to do over telepresence than in person. That's a basic functions of how social animals work.

Telepresence is great for the vast majority of mundane connections. But it's not at the point where it can completely replace travel. I wish it could, because I'd love to travel less.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#36

Post by dehrmann »

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.

At least it got the segment right; ~30% of CO2 emissions are from transportation.

It cracks me up when people talk about plastic and throwaway clothing as ways to cut back on carbon emissions.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#37

Post by human20190310 »

DisruptiveDave wrote: post #7
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.

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

Face-to-face business meetings really should be obsolete by now. It's difficult to imagine a more inefficient business process, especially for sales, where the outcome might be simply nothing.

Nevertheless, the salespeople who show up in person tend to have an advantage in getting the business. It's a nightmare with real consequences.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#38

Post by agumonkey »

creaghpatr wrote: post #28
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.

Or we invent solar-powered planes. Not feasible yet, but who knows.

there's one but it's a single passenger unit

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#39

Post by funklute »

nkohari wrote: post #32
funklute wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any time someone actually does the math on sucking carbon out of the atmosphere, it seemingly becomes clear that it is simply not scalable to suck the carbon out of the atmosphere. Have you done the math, and if so, why is everyone who comes to the aforementioned conclusion wrong?

There is an argument that it will become cheaper if more investment flows into the technology. For example, when solar power was originally conceived it wasn't cost-effective, but over the years it has seen tremendous gains in efficiency. That said, I'm not educated on the topic well enough to say whether this argument applies to carbon sequestration.

Same, I also don't think I'm educated enough... but many people who are educated in this area do conclude that carbon removal is a non-starter, so I feel there is a certain burden of proof to claim that it will work. Solar power is a good example of a technology that did better than I would have thought, but there are many others that have silently fallen by the wayside.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#40

Post by jcims »

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?
Post reply on HN