Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions • Hacker News Board

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#321

Post by dTal » Sat, Sep 21, 2019, 5:37 PM UTC

andrepd wrote: post #227

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 about fusion power? It's the dream energy source: the fuel is seawater, the waste is slightly lighter seawater. It seems the perfect target for a Manhattan project/moonshot sort of effort. Giving several teams with competing designs $100B each to develop and test their reactor, in parallel. The potential benefit of near-free clean energy is so absolutely world-changing that it seems worth it to spend on the orde…

>It seems the perfect target for a Manhattan project/moonshot sort of effort.

It would be funny, if it weren't tragic, how "manhattan project" and "moonshot" are the bywords for absurdly expensive government projects. Both these things were peanuts compared to the staggering amounts that politicians routinely fart away on practically overnight whims, for dubious and very likely corrupt reasons:

Manhattan project: $23 billion

Trump's wall: $22 billion

Moonshot: $288 billion

2008 bailouts: $700 billion

All US fusion research investment ever: ~$30 billion

Iraq war: $2 trillion

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#322

Post by scarejunba » Sat, Sep 21, 2019, 6:15 PM UTC

petermcneeley wrote: post #275

scarejunba wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The manual choice of what is low-hanging fruit is a path to failure. Instead, we should just tax the emission of the dangerous substance. So today, we'll do CO2. After a while, we'll include CH4. Then with a total cap on carbon, we allow the market to trade the right to carbon. This will allow money to flow to the right places.

If your implementation means that a person in the third world cannot afford a fire to cook meals but a person in the first world can afford a huge fire pit for cooking marshmallows I would say you are well on your way to creating a dystopia. But hey perhaps they could pay for their emissions using those digital microloans!

Can't do it. Flammable material is readily available so they won't play the game if it means they'll starve (which is how I'd do it). I can't impose that on these people and it is an outcome that is absurd so I'm sure we can make something work here.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#323

Post by TulliusCicero » Sat, Sep 21, 2019, 8:43 PM UTC

learnstats2 wrote: post #262

TulliusCicero wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think there is an evidence for that. It is more likely that immigration increases cultural understanding rather than travel. Disagree that travel doesn't matter, but even then, do you really think it being much harder to visit their home countries again will have no impact on immigration patterns? > In any case, emissions of travel can be greatly reduced by using other modes of transport Would love to hear…

> Disagree that travel doesn't matter We know - you already made this point in the parent comment. > sans airplanes You've moved the goalposts from 'greatly reduced air travel' to 'sans airplanes'.

> We know - you already made this point in the parent comment.

...is your point here that points can't reiterated or something?

> You've moved the goalposts from 'greatly reduced air travel' to 'sans airplanes'.

They're the one that talked about using other means of transport. I had already mentioned immigration. If you greatly reduce it by making it harder/more expensive, that impacts immigrants.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#324

Post by tick_tock_tick » Mon, Sep 23, 2019, 4:25 PM UTC

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #108

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Find other low or zero emission power sources is the same as "innovation is required to combat client change" as OP. Technically nuclear would be perfect but practically I fear that ship already sailed nothing else up an coming except maybe fusion has any potential as a real baseload powersource. Without another breakthrough in battery technology solar and wind will never be more than the token effort they are today.

I'm not laying that out as the better option, just that if we're going to create arbitrary lists of things that was solve climate change, I don't understand what the criteria was to make the cut or not, outside of one's own personal preference.

Does it solve the problem is the cut and solar and wind don't make it right now.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#325

Post by kaybe » Thu, Sep 26, 2019, 4:23 AM UTC

kaybe wrote: post #123

phkahler wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Edit: Discussion with a colleague lead to an estimation of a residual time of ~10-30 years of the heat caught in the system, so 'soon' should be understood like that.