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

91–100 of 325 posts

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#91

Post by claytoneast »

saalweachter wrote: post #71
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.

This is kind of only true if you're the sort of person who flies a lot. If you're someone who never flies, or flies once every year or two, it's not really a big deal at all. On the rare occasion I travel transcontinental I would need to set aside 3 days each way for travel instead of one, which would be inconvenient but not really a huge problem. Even if my transoceanic freight exclusively went by boat, it wouldn't…

That is absolutely 100% a dealbreaker when you have 2-4 weeks of paid vacation a year.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#92

Post by _Microft »

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 idea of the scale btw)

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#93

Post by asokoloski »

quotemstr wrote: post #52

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…

I'm a climate activist, and I can't control how others act, but I'm in favor of, like you say, anything that works.

The Citizens' Climate Lobby is focusing on a carbon fee and dividend. I'm new to the movement (so take what I say with a grain of salt) but I like what I see so far. We're very focused on one particular legislative approach, not because other things won't help, but because it's hard enough getting legislation like H.R. 763 through congress already, and distractions dilute our precious time and energy. So the CCL is pushing on just this one bill, which we think is the most effective approach for us.

But I'd love to see people work on everything and everything. I just think it's probably most effective for most organizations to focus on a relatively narrow area.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#94

Post by TeMPOraL »

usaar333 wrote: post #69
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.

Like most things with climate change, it's not about banning X action. It's about discouraging it. The more accurate question is how does everyone respond if the cost of flying doubles? How many business trips can be handled by VC? How many personal trips provide similar value being taken closer to home?

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.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#95

Post by wmf »

Maximus9000 wrote: post #81
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…

> "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!" Do you have links for this?

https://web.archive.org/web/20160411094048/http://www.atmos....

https://www.nature.com/news/2008/081231/full/news.2008.1335....

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#96

Post by DisruptiveDave »

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?

Every. Single. One.

There is not a single interaction in which in-person-ness doesn't add value.

Necessary is a different ball game though. That wasn't my beef. My beef is with anyone truly believing that physicality holds no value.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#97

Post by ScottBurson »

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…

I don't know about carbon capture, but I do think we should be researching sulfur aerosols and iron fertilization. See Oliver Morton's excellent book The Planet Remade.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#98

Post by TeMPOraL »

quotemstr wrote: post #61
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?

These guys seem to have a viable approach to accelerated weathering, a form of carbon removal: https://projectvesta.org/

I skimmed their site and I'm yet to read the whitepaper, but I have one question that wasn't so far answered: what about transportation costs? Is this still net carbon negative when you account for the costs of moving all this rock and spreading it on the beaches?

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#99

Post by factsaresacred »

dkural wrote: post #43
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…

On a per dollar basis, sucking carbon out is the most expensive option. Economics dictates that there is lower hanging fruit & best to prevent / reduce CO2 emissions at concentrated sources than to suck out it from an extremely dispersed atmosphere. You're fighting against basic entropy (entropy always wins).

In economic terms, it's a classic tragedy of the commons scenario. Self-interest and inertia wins.

There's no way you're getting people to downgrade their present for some stranger's future without good incentives.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#100

Post by blondie9x »

I work remote and can pretty much be anywhere anytime working. But I try to be content and focus on where I chose to live. To build relationships and deeper connections to the local community. I try to do one trip a year max by plane and when I go its usually for longer periods of time. We should travel less and focus more on the place we call home.

When people tell me they love to travel. I reply why? It's usually I want to get away or I'm sick of where I am now in my life. Try to understand this feeling deeper and think about how you can better structure your life to appreciate the moment and where you choose to build yourself and your community. People also sometimes describe travel as a sort of escape. It's important to try and understand that feeling deeper. Why do you need to escape from your life as it is now?

Post reply on HN