It doesn't make sense to frame the issue as a matter of guilt, and neither is it relevant to look at the relative emissions of others.
The simple matter is that we have a carbon budget per person on Earth. If you're above that, you should voluntarily reduce yourself below it.
If you (we) don't, more aggressive mechanisms will eventually force us all to.
Fly as much as you want, but you must capture or offset the emissions.
This applies equally to all direct or indirect usage of fossil fuels. Driving, heating, goods, whatever.
It's basic mathematics at this point. Guilt and shame are one potential social mechanism for getting people to realise what they must do. Taxation is another. People dying out is another. Etc. I suppose in that lens it's probably the lesser of the evils.
But it's very much indirect, the shame is a sort of evolved potential solution rather than anything "real".
There's one thing I disagree with: the notion that we should voluntarily stay "within our share" in order to not be forced to do it.
I tried for years to avoid flying. I guess I stayed on the ground for about a decade It was a royal pain, because e.g. visiting the UK (where I have close relatives) from Norway is really, really painful by surface travel. It shouldn't be: it's close, after all, and there used to be ferries. But they all got closed down due to cheap flights (more recently than you'd think).
"Voluntarily" reducing your carbon footprint will usually run into this obstacle. It means taking a lot of costs and inconvenience on yourself, which wouldn't have been there if we'd been forced (or rather, used our collective decision mechanisms to decide) to share these costs fairly. Concretely in my case, there might have been a ferry from Bergen again.
That's why I welcome legislation. Even "oppressive" legislation that I wouldn't go for myself, like banning meat. I wouldn't go for it, but I'd respect it if it was passed, because I realize we have to make these decisions together, consciously, rather than individually and according to our personal guilt levels.
This is what's missing. Thunberg and co are raging at the politicians, but politicians are probably more willing to accept big changes than the public is. They're as bold as the public allows them to.
We need to get together and establish what our duties are. Maybe we'll let some get a bigger share of the carbon budget. Maybe we'll let the rich buy themselves a bigger share of those resources, just like they currently get to buy themselves a bigger share of everything else. But whatever we decide: the important thing is not your personal decisions, but that you accept that contra Bush the elder, your way of life IS up for negotiation.
The biggest impact on climate is industry.
No eating meat, or not flying is a drop in the bucket.
I think meat industry was estimated at 3%.
Politicians are picked by big business and that's why there is a resistance to deal with the issue systematically.
Also sad truth is that N America and Europe are reducing their footprint while China and India are happily growing on heaps of burning plastics.
This is global problem and we don't have tools to deal with it globally. Give money to China to reduce the emissions, they will take it and put up a front of them doing something. The horrible truth is that we can barely do anything about the global warning. All we are really doing is watch this tragic play called "The tragedy of the commons" slowly playing out as we seep coke through paper straw from a plastic cup.
Well, it's certainly the case that voluntarily performing these actions increases market demand.
Consider for example the enormous proliferation of vegan food. I don't know about Norway, but Sweden has stuff everywhere, in rural village supermarkets for example.
It certainly helps that a lot of activists skew towards the higher income end of the spectrum.
I offset all my flights now (I probably fly about three round trips per year). My wife and I recently went to Greece (from Toronto), which were two trips of 10+ hours and IIRC almost 7 tons of carbon emissions. I purchased $170 CAD of offsets from a Canadian nonprofit (https://www.less.ca/). Not a perfect solution, but it’s something. I’m also considering calculating our family’s total yearly carbon emissions and offsetting all of them.
But here’s the thing: why aren’t offsets just baked into the price of all air travel? It would not be a huge increase in ticket prices. I would guess perhaps 10, maybe 15%. We need to change the idea that we have some god given right to externalize our environmental impacts.
I've always been somewhat skeptical of the offsets. It isn't as though there is a company (or non-profit) that is sucking an equivalent amount of CO2 out of the air. Planting trees only goes so far. I guess that generating funds to pursue other reductions is worthwhile, but it doesn't really undo the damage from the CO2 that was emitted in the first place.
The cynic in me thinks it is simply a mechanism for people to buy away their guilt without actually accomplishing anything.
why aren’t offsets just baked into the price of all air travel?
Sounds like a carbon tax to me, which I am completely in favour of. If the proceeds are used to develop renewable energy or subsidise electric car purchase or other such things, so much the better. Call it a carrot and stick approach.
Emission offset is just a way for rich people to absolve their sins. If you release CO2 in the atmosphere that was previously sequestered in the ground it's out. Sure you can plant some trees, and they'll bind the carbon as they grow, but what happens when they get old and die? Bacteria and fungi release the carbon back into the air.
> but what happens when they get old and die? Bacteria and fungi release the carbon back into the air.
And at that point the forest is in steady state: growth of new trees offsets the decay of old ones.
Planting trees is only a temporary solution; you only get to count the credits once. Eventually much of the world will be covered in forests and different solutions will be needed.
But it's an extremely valuable temporary solution. More forests are a good thing, and hopefully by then electric airplanes will be a cheaper option than offsets.
When I state that people must capture their emissions - I mean precisely that, as a simple matter of mathematics, the matter released must be captured and sequestered.
Offsetting is a different matter entirely and is more of a transitionary exercise, because we ultimately need to hit net zero, for which offsetting is not a solution.
The mechanics of either of those are done are left as an exercise for the reader.
On geological timescales all of this stuff is quite hard. For example, you could populate massive forests, fell the trees and just stack up massive piles of wood. Assuming all of that is net carbon negative - what if there's a massive fire in the next thousand years? Oops.
That doesn’t sound like a well-informed opinion to me. Have you looked at rigorously certified carbon offset and capture programs? It is not just treeplanting.
It’s morally absurd, no one has suggested Jeffrey Epstein or Bill Cosby could donate money to sex abuse victims and then what they did would suddenly be acceptable.
It’s one thing to be wealthy and claim global warming is the most serious threat to life on earth, and fly normal commercial planes with other people. It’s another to zoom around in a private jet to your personal vacation spot and board someone’s private yacht for a week. If you really wanted to be terrible, you could be like Sir Richard Branson and launch a cruise line.
The objective of the Fredericton Region Solid Waste Commission (FRSWC) Landfill Gas Capture and Flare project is to capture and flare the landfill gas produced at the landfill located in Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada, to further avoid emissions of methane to the atmosphere.
The Fredericton Region Solid Waste Commission (FRSWC) Landfill began operations in 1986, covers 120 hectares of area and has over 1 million tons of waste in place. The landfill is currently accepting 75,000 tonnes per year of municipal solid waste and has the capacity to accept waste for the next 45 years.
The New Brunswick province where the project is located has no regulatory requirements mandating the capture or flaring of landfill gas. Hence, the business as usual practice prior to the implementation of the project activity was complete release of Landfill Gas (LFG) into the atmosphere.
The project activity is defined as the construction of 26 vertical wells, installation of 2,100 meters of pipeline and a flare for the purpose of LFG capture and methane destruction. A blower was installed to create a slight vacuum to draw the LFG through the pipeline and capped wells to the flare. The flare is an enclosed drum flare with high destruction efficiency to combust LFG and prevents direct methane emissions into the atmosphere.
The forecasted amount of GHG emission reductions from the project is estimated to be 241,585 tonnes of CO2 equivalents (tCO2e) during the period of 8th December 2006 to 31st December 2010.
------------
You may disagree that this is an effective project, but I am more likely to trust an independent auditor (that's who produces these reports) that outlines the scientific basis in terms I can understand, that make sense, and that clearly identify the environmental impact.
To me the biggest question is, would this project have existed regardless of whether or not I purchased offsets? I choose not to take this attitude of helplessness. I choose to fund, with my own money, scientifically verified and audited projects like this as opposed to doing nothing.
By doing so, I believe that I mitigate and possibly eliminate the negative environmental impact of the choices I make to travel. Then I can focus on the positive impacts: The trip I took benefited me personally and broadened my world view. It improved my relationship with my wife. We contributed a little bit to the economy of Greece. Etc.
The problem is that there's no short term downside to using more than your share, and most people won't live to see the longer term effects of their decisions. People tend to maximize their own utility, and cutting back typically is the opposite.
I don't think we should go the opposite direction, though, and legislate our way out by, for example, banning popular polluting products like meat and cars. Instead, I think we should just add in the long term costs so short term decisions are appropriately adjusted. I believe strongly that a carbon tax (or a more general pollution tax to cover things like methane) can significantly improve things generally without any bans. If you increase the price of jet fuel, airline ticket prices go up, which discourages use of airlines and encourages more efficient alternatives, like trains or telecommuting. It can touch pretty much every negative aspect of society without the complexity and subjectivity of deciding which products are bad enough to get banned. Companies that pollute will be forced to innovate or lose to greener competitors without all the complexity of juggling subsidies.
I don't know why we haven't seriously presented a workable carbon tax. One side of politics chooses to ignore the problem, while the other side chases subsidies and regulation. I think taxing sources of carbon and other greenhouse gases makes a ton of sense.
> I don't know why we haven't seriously presented a workable carbon tax.
Two countries with highly visible carbon taxes are France and Canada. You've seen the video of the yellow vest protests in France. A carbon tax is highly regressive, affecting the poor more than the rich.
In Canada they did it "properly", making it progressive through an offset. 80% of Canadians get more money from the carbon tax offset than they pay out into the carbon tax. The government is likely going to fall (or at best drop into minority status) in the election on Monday. The carbon tax is one of the key reasons for their fall.
> you should voluntarily reduce yourself below it.
I don't think you can reasonably expect people to do those things voluntarily
The problem is that politically it's very difficult to reduce emissions because it often means it reduce their comfort, so legally it's complicated.
Shaming people and making them feel guilty is a good alternative and a first step, because there are no legal means to make good progress, like a carbon tax.
Unfortunately many of the offsetting strategies also require additional natural resources which puts more and more pressure on the whole system. It's also not really fair that access to resources then ends up determining how free you are (e.g. in terms of mobility) to a large extent.
Project Wren is one, I reckon they'd put you at about 10 tonnes per year or so, that's a very rough order of magnitude estimate by me though.
Regarding budget; that's something that would have to be decided in a vague sense in order to enact a carbon tax.
On a personal level you can just decide. Personally I donate and buy enough offset/capture that I go negative, because I can, and because my career means that I have enough money as long as I calibrate my lifestyle expectations appropriately.
*Industry groups oppose such measures. “U.S. airlines are committed to reducing carbon emissions even further,” said Carter Yang, a spokesman for the airline industry group, Airlines for America. “That effort would be harmed, not helped, by proposals that would siphon away into government coffers the very funds needed to continue investing in new, more fuel-efficient aircraft, sustainable alternative aviation fuels,” and other innovations, he said.
The "lining government coffers" approach is tired and obvious.
Fuel efficiency standards for automobiles demonstrably reduce car emissions. Fuel efficiency standards for airplanes can drive down emissions as well.
The air travel industry is predicated on taking loans against society's future environmental health for profits today. If they poured their research into looking at truly low or zero emission options they could easily argue for exemptions to emissions-based taxing and clean up the competition at the same time.
It should be a race to be green, not a race to protect the green they're making on existing business models.
I don't think this "you don't need to feel guilty if you're not a frequent flyer" narrative is useful at all.
A flight uses between 2 and 6 liters of kerosine per 100 km for every passenger [1]. You travel around 800-900 km per hour on a passenger plane, which means your rate of fuel use is fairly high (let's say 30 liters per hour). Putting it in these numbers allows you to compare it to filling up your car and puts some things in perspective.
Taking a flight now and then is not going to end the world. But it does provide an easy opportunity to reduce emissions.
The frequency argument seems reasonable as driving yourself to the same location is generally worse for the environment. What makes flying bad is the rate you can travel. You can fly 2 million miles far easier than driving an IC car that distance.
Of course this assumes commercial aviation, private jets are much worse for the environment.
driving yourself to the same location is generally worse for the environment
Curious what this is based on, taking road construction, car ownership, etc into the calculation? Because as for fuel consumption clearly it depends - if you're a family, taking 1 car is generally going to be more fuel efficient.
Thank you for accurately outlining the scale of the problem. I meet so many who think that only flying once or twice a year is OK, or that flying can't be that bad.
Not guilty at all. I travel internationally. There really isn't a better option for traveling over the pacific. Yes, I recognize I could stay in one place, I don't consider that a viable option.
I think it's a boondoggle to attempt to shame people into changing their behavior when they do not have viable options.
"I think it's a boondoggle to attempt to shame people into changing their behavior when they do not have viable options."
It's perhaps a boondoggle to represent a person's life as having only a single option that requires such things.
If you want to have the sort of life that requires your flights back and forth, that's one thing -- but voluntary participation in that life is a different thing than suggesting that you're trapped by circumstance.
Does the fact that there are no other options for trans pacific travel change how much CO2 you're releasing into the atmosphere because you don't want to change your habits? The planet doesn't really care about options or intentions, only actions.
“You know, I really enjoy lighting tire fires, and these damn tree huggers are just trying to shame me, and not give me any other viable alternatives.”
Why is that any different an attitude than yours? This behavior is literally killing our species. Unfortunately we don’t have a non-harmful viable alternative to the destructive behavior you enjoy. Perhaps it’s reasonable to consider changing that behavior.
Buy a ticket on a shipping vessel, for instance. It’s way slower than flying, but you can travel the world this way at a fraction of the carbon footprint.
I do find the idea of traveling via a shipping vessel interesting. Unfortunately, they are not well advertised and the routes are extremely limited when compared to an international flight.
I can do direct from Texas to Tokyo in under 13 hours. I did see ten day routes from a couple of east coast ports. However, traveling this way from Texas doesn't seem viable.
Perhaps I should expand on the definition of viable. I intended the definition: capable of working, functioning, or developing adequately
Ten days stretches the credibility of viable in my humble opinion. Not a fan of Quora, but the site suggested I could go Houston to Chiba in 26 days. Round trip would be 52 days.
I'm currently doing two round trip international flights a year. Previously I was taking four.
Two round trips would be 104 days of traveling a year on a ship versus my current 52 hours on an airplane.
classic 'want to eat cake and have cake'. shaming is the first step, the next policy step should be (will be?) carbon tax. i wonder what such a tax would do with viability of options if it was noticeable.
It doesn't matter how many people exist if each is a net zero in terms of emissions. What would be better, having more children that each have a net negative impact on the planet, or having fewer?
Personally, I think the whole "reduce the number of humans" solution is terrible and completely misses the mark. We don't need to reduce the number of humans, we need to increase the efficiency of each human in terms of impact on the environment. We need more innovators, not fewer, and innovators need capital, so we should be encouraging more reproduction by those with means rather than less.
Personally, I think the most practical solution is to tax pollution. Wealthy nations seem to produce far more pollution per captia than developing nation's, and developing nations adopt our bad habits. Taxing pollution increases the cost of these bad habits and encourages green innovation. We saw a move toward smaller cars in 2008 when driving became more expensive relative to income, and the same thing can happen to other aspects of our lives if living green becomes less expensive than polluting. And that culture of living green (and the cost reductions associated with innovation) will propagate to developing countries, which will decrease the average political per capita.
I don't think reducing the total population significantly is workable, and attempts are only going to remove the people who have the largest chance of solving the problem generally.
Ideally, we should reduce flying, but in the short term, it is not something I get overly concerned about if there is not a reasonable alternative (taking the train for example). Yes, you could always choose not to make the trip, but that comes with varying levels of pain points (maybe you miss out on visiting family, for example).
The reason I take this position is because there is so much low hanging fruit that doesn't require significant lifestyle changes that we should be doing those things first and NOW before we get too worked up about lifestyle changes. I drive an electric car; for most purposes it is an exact replacement for a petrol/gasoline car. In many ways it is better (cheaper fuel, cheaper maintenance, quieter, better for air quality). In some ways, it is worse (lower range between fueling, though I find that is rarely a practical issue). My point is that, financial considerations aside, most people could easily replace their car with an electric one without seriously impacting the way they live their lives. There are many things like this which would have a huge impact without forcing people to change their habits too suddenly. Once these changes are well underway, we can look at whether and what major lifestyle changes are still needed.
I am a swede and I am totally confused on why people in my country seems to totally have lost their minds. People only feel guilty about some things.
These are the same people that buy products from "hip" companies like Apple which are famous for making products harder to repair and practically forces people to buy completely new devices even if something is wrong on the current one and that it easily could be repaired. Yet I have never heard about any shame owning an Apple product, most likely it's the reversed.
My point is that people are irrational and only acts on stuff that either feel, sound or looks good. Like always when a headline starts with a question, the answer is probably going to be a resounding "no".
It isn't the act of flying that makes it bad. For example, a swedish company fly with partly renewable fuel (https://www.flygbra.se/hallbarhet/boka-miljo-class/faq/) and I believe any issue can be solved with technology advancement.
We shouldn't limit ourselves because of climate change. We should instead improve the technology and make it better so it doesn't impact the climate in such a way it becomes unsustainable.
This is the core issue I have with the crazy people in my country. They complain but offer zero alternatives except "not doing that". Just compare Greta Thunberg (which is a person with zero suggestions) to Boyan Slat that actually tried to develop technology to clean up the oceans.
Greta is way more famous and have way more attention even if Boyan is far, far more admirable and actually tries to provide solutions for the future.
> Just compare Greta Thunberg (which is a person with zero suggestions)
This is a lie. Plenty of suggestions have been made from this part of the political spectrum which are primarily based on incentivizing less damaging behaviour. The problem is that while we can reduce flying and we can reduce trips by car and we can reduce meat consumption and we can force shipping companies to use more environmentally friendly albeit more expensive fuels, none of the "technological solutions" you and other people say "should be developed" exist at the moment. By all means, feel free to invent new technologies which reduce carbon footprints and which help tackle climate change, but stop saying that really someone should develop these things so that maybe they could be used twenty years from now.
Twenty years ago, we had the option of either drastically raising taxes on CO2 or trusting that "technology" would arrive to reduce CO2 footprints. We were promised exclusively electric cars everywhere by 2020, passively cooled and heated housing etc. etc. None of those things have materialised, instead now we have people saying that we should "improve technology" and maybe in twenty years time we will have some solutions.
We also can produce energy without fossile fuels and burning coal. I am not saying we should not stop putting out carbon into the atmosphere. I am saying that the idea that we shouldn't travel as much etc will never fly (pun intended).
That is why you never see politicians and "influencers" etc live as they preach. Because people need to use a car, people need to fly and take boats.
What we can do is produce energy in a better way and consume it in a better way. If that means banning cars and planes that burn fuel, so be it. I am not against that. What I am against is the idea that we should stop doing stuff because our environment requires it.
I am working remotely, so I use my car more seldom that I belive many people that commutes every day. Yet, swedish companies that claim to be so environmental friendly seems to be very hostile to remote work in general.
Stuff like that is what I am against. Don't tell people how to live and then do the reverse yourself. I agree we should act now but the environmental movement is really more anti-progress than pro environment at least in Sweden in my opinion.
> We shouldn't limit ourselves because of climate change. We should instead improve the technology and make it better so it doesn't impact the climate in such a way it becomes unsustainable.
I think we totally should limit ourselves from the idea that it's totally normal to expect to be able to fly anywhere in the world in ~24 hours and to do this regularly.
Flying is a large source of CO2 emissions and we need to lower CO2 emissions. We have a myriad of experts telling us what to do in light of the climate changing fundamentally but no one listens.
Greta Thunberg is only here to remind every grown up to be better than how they currently are. The experts are here for the solutions. Like putting a price on CO2 emissions. Greta is only filling the spot that politicians don't want to fill. Because it is unpopular to tell everyone to consume less.
Fly less or not at al is a good thing to say because one flight takes up a lot of the budget everyone on this planet has for consumption.
The iPhone is not as impactful in its CO2 footprint as flying so telling people to take care with flying is perfectly ok.
Making laws to increase repairability is also a good measure, so demanding that isn't bad either.
The combined emissions from flying is about the same as the combined emissions from all cars in Sweden. Around 80% of all flying is private, 20% business. 20% of the population is responsible for 50% of the flying. Each flight is a relatively large part of a person's combined CO2 emissions, and it's pretty easy to not do it, compared to getting to work or eating food. That's why it's a pretty big deal.
As for Greta, all she's saying is that politicians should listen to the scientists and implement policies accordingly.
Obviously you dont like to be told to "not do that" if you believe technology will solve all our problems. However, most people do not share your view.
And just pointing out that the focus on not flying might be irrational, does not make it okay to fly as much as you want.
Sure, but it was just an example to illustrate my point. They hanven't been the good at all in recycling their products until pretty recently.
They still try and keep people from actually repairing their devices which are perfectly fine in many cases. So I believe it's still a valid point even if there could be better examples.
And honestly, you write
> updated for a long, long time
Are they really tho? A few years is not a long, long time in my opinion and even if you don't buy a new one for a couple of years and it's still updated they usually make it unbearable slow so that you cannot live with it anymore and purchase a new one. It is easy to update, but nearly impossible to go back to an older version if the new version turns out to be very slow.
My father still uses a dumphone and a windows phone. They both work surprisingly well for him, especially the windows phone. I am actually pretty amazed on the longevity of the Nokia Lumia.
Making a phone last 2-4 years is not a long time. I believe many people could easily have the same phones for 10+ years if the phone makers were interested of making that happen. They aren't though and that is a bit of an issue.
Just compare a phone to most other products and you will soon notice people update their smart phone a lot more often than most other things. Sure it's an important device but not that many people would actually need the feature upgrade every version have.
Make a phone that lasts 20 years or more and I will start to believe that you are making good, long lasting products.
How guilty do I feel? It depends on the day you ask me.
If you ask me when I am feeling like a pessimist, then I don't feel great about it. My attitude is that we're 7 billion all living under one bedsheet and guilting the people who pass gas. Eventually we will all suffocate. Living as though humanity needs palliative care is disturbing. It might be the most realistic, but I can't process it every day.
If you ask me when I am feeling like an optimist, then morbidly, I feel that we have embraced driving over a cliff, but that while we are airborne, we might design wings, test them, and learn to fly before plummeting to our deaths.
If you ask me when I am feeling like a cynic, then someone is going to bioengineer a population reducer, and 1% of us will inherit the earth before 2100. That would also solve the problem, but I won't get to be around to enjoy it.
Here's the rub, none of these require me to do anything differently. Now tell me how I can add a fourth option that I can genuinely believe has some reasonable metric for improving our chances. I'm having such a hard time finding it, and I think that people like me, left to compound their depressed thoughts, invariably turn into the enemy on this global effort. Anyone, please?
Readit News
The simple matter is that we have a carbon budget per person on Earth. If you're above that, you should voluntarily reduce yourself below it.
If you (we) don't, more aggressive mechanisms will eventually force us all to.
Fly as much as you want, but you must capture or offset the emissions.
This applies equally to all direct or indirect usage of fossil fuels. Driving, heating, goods, whatever.
It's basic mathematics at this point. Guilt and shame are one potential social mechanism for getting people to realise what they must do. Taxation is another. People dying out is another. Etc. I suppose in that lens it's probably the lesser of the evils.
But it's very much indirect, the shame is a sort of evolved potential solution rather than anything "real".
I tried for years to avoid flying. I guess I stayed on the ground for about a decade It was a royal pain, because e.g. visiting the UK (where I have close relatives) from Norway is really, really painful by surface travel. It shouldn't be: it's close, after all, and there used to be ferries. But they all got closed down due to cheap flights (more recently than you'd think).
"Voluntarily" reducing your carbon footprint will usually run into this obstacle. It means taking a lot of costs and inconvenience on yourself, which wouldn't have been there if we'd been forced (or rather, used our collective decision mechanisms to decide) to share these costs fairly. Concretely in my case, there might have been a ferry from Bergen again.
That's why I welcome legislation. Even "oppressive" legislation that I wouldn't go for myself, like banning meat. I wouldn't go for it, but I'd respect it if it was passed, because I realize we have to make these decisions together, consciously, rather than individually and according to our personal guilt levels.
This is what's missing. Thunberg and co are raging at the politicians, but politicians are probably more willing to accept big changes than the public is. They're as bold as the public allows them to.
We need to get together and establish what our duties are. Maybe we'll let some get a bigger share of the carbon budget. Maybe we'll let the rich buy themselves a bigger share of those resources, just like they currently get to buy themselves a bigger share of everything else. But whatever we decide: the important thing is not your personal decisions, but that you accept that contra Bush the elder, your way of life IS up for negotiation.
Politicians are picked by big business and that's why there is a resistance to deal with the issue systematically.
Also sad truth is that N America and Europe are reducing their footprint while China and India are happily growing on heaps of burning plastics.
This is global problem and we don't have tools to deal with it globally. Give money to China to reduce the emissions, they will take it and put up a front of them doing something. The horrible truth is that we can barely do anything about the global warning. All we are really doing is watch this tragic play called "The tragedy of the commons" slowly playing out as we seep coke through paper straw from a plastic cup.
I really hope I am wrong.
Consider for example the enormous proliferation of vegan food. I don't know about Norway, but Sweden has stuff everywhere, in rural village supermarkets for example.
It certainly helps that a lot of activists skew towards the higher income end of the spectrum.
But here’s the thing: why aren’t offsets just baked into the price of all air travel? It would not be a huge increase in ticket prices. I would guess perhaps 10, maybe 15%. We need to change the idea that we have some god given right to externalize our environmental impacts.
The cynic in me thinks it is simply a mechanism for people to buy away their guilt without actually accomplishing anything.
why aren’t offsets just baked into the price of all air travel?
Sounds like a carbon tax to me, which I am completely in favour of. If the proceeds are used to develop renewable energy or subsidise electric car purchase or other such things, so much the better. Call it a carrot and stick approach.
And at that point the forest is in steady state: growth of new trees offsets the decay of old ones.
Planting trees is only a temporary solution; you only get to count the credits once. Eventually much of the world will be covered in forests and different solutions will be needed.
But it's an extremely valuable temporary solution. More forests are a good thing, and hopefully by then electric airplanes will be a cheaper option than offsets.
Offsetting is a different matter entirely and is more of a transitionary exercise, because we ultimately need to hit net zero, for which offsetting is not a solution.
The mechanics of either of those are done are left as an exercise for the reader.
On geological timescales all of this stuff is quite hard. For example, you could populate massive forests, fell the trees and just stack up massive piles of wood. Assuming all of that is net carbon negative - what if there's a massive fire in the next thousand years? Oops.
It’s one thing to be wealthy and claim global warming is the most serious threat to life on earth, and fly normal commercial planes with other people. It’s another to zoom around in a private jet to your personal vacation spot and board someone’s private yacht for a week. If you really wanted to be terrible, you could be like Sir Richard Branson and launch a cruise line.
------------
The objective of the Fredericton Region Solid Waste Commission (FRSWC) Landfill Gas Capture and Flare project is to capture and flare the landfill gas produced at the landfill located in Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada, to further avoid emissions of methane to the atmosphere.
The Fredericton Region Solid Waste Commission (FRSWC) Landfill began operations in 1986, covers 120 hectares of area and has over 1 million tons of waste in place. The landfill is currently accepting 75,000 tonnes per year of municipal solid waste and has the capacity to accept waste for the next 45 years.
The New Brunswick province where the project is located has no regulatory requirements mandating the capture or flaring of landfill gas. Hence, the business as usual practice prior to the implementation of the project activity was complete release of Landfill Gas (LFG) into the atmosphere.
The project activity is defined as the construction of 26 vertical wells, installation of 2,100 meters of pipeline and a flare for the purpose of LFG capture and methane destruction. A blower was installed to create a slight vacuum to draw the LFG through the pipeline and capped wells to the flare. The flare is an enclosed drum flare with high destruction efficiency to combust LFG and prevents direct methane emissions into the atmosphere.
The forecasted amount of GHG emission reductions from the project is estimated to be 241,585 tonnes of CO2 equivalents (tCO2e) during the period of 8th December 2006 to 31st December 2010.
------------
You may disagree that this is an effective project, but I am more likely to trust an independent auditor (that's who produces these reports) that outlines the scientific basis in terms I can understand, that make sense, and that clearly identify the environmental impact.
To me the biggest question is, would this project have existed regardless of whether or not I purchased offsets? I choose not to take this attitude of helplessness. I choose to fund, with my own money, scientifically verified and audited projects like this as opposed to doing nothing.
By doing so, I believe that I mitigate and possibly eliminate the negative environmental impact of the choices I make to travel. Then I can focus on the positive impacts: The trip I took benefited me personally and broadened my world view. It improved my relationship with my wife. We contributed a little bit to the economy of Greece. Etc.
I don't think we should go the opposite direction, though, and legislate our way out by, for example, banning popular polluting products like meat and cars. Instead, I think we should just add in the long term costs so short term decisions are appropriately adjusted. I believe strongly that a carbon tax (or a more general pollution tax to cover things like methane) can significantly improve things generally without any bans. If you increase the price of jet fuel, airline ticket prices go up, which discourages use of airlines and encourages more efficient alternatives, like trains or telecommuting. It can touch pretty much every negative aspect of society without the complexity and subjectivity of deciding which products are bad enough to get banned. Companies that pollute will be forced to innovate or lose to greener competitors without all the complexity of juggling subsidies.
I don't know why we haven't seriously presented a workable carbon tax. One side of politics chooses to ignore the problem, while the other side chases subsidies and regulation. I think taxing sources of carbon and other greenhouse gases makes a ton of sense.
Two countries with highly visible carbon taxes are France and Canada. You've seen the video of the yellow vest protests in France. A carbon tax is highly regressive, affecting the poor more than the rich.
In Canada they did it "properly", making it progressive through an offset. 80% of Canadians get more money from the carbon tax offset than they pay out into the carbon tax. The government is likely going to fall (or at best drop into minority status) in the election on Monday. The carbon tax is one of the key reasons for their fall.
You're right, it doesn't make any sense.
Sure, we shouldn't ban anything. We probably actually can't.
I don't think you can reasonably expect people to do those things voluntarily
The problem is that politically it's very difficult to reduce emissions because it often means it reduce their comfort, so legally it's complicated.
Shaming people and making them feel guilty is a good alternative and a first step, because there are no legal means to make good progress, like a carbon tax.
I'd like to know where I stand right now, since I'm not particularly environmentally friendly:
I drive a gas-powered vehicle (8-10k miles/year)
I eat meat, including red meats
I fly over the Atlantic at least once a year, sometimes twice, sometimes a local flight as well (under 3 hrs)
Project Wren is one, I reckon they'd put you at about 10 tonnes per year or so, that's a very rough order of magnitude estimate by me though.
Regarding budget; that's something that would have to be decided in a vague sense in order to enact a carbon tax.
On a personal level you can just decide. Personally I donate and buy enough offset/capture that I go negative, because I can, and because my career means that I have enough money as long as I calibrate my lifestyle expectations appropriately.
I was born into a world where people can "litter" in the air without fine.
Could we simply consider this littering? If you want to drive a car, you must pay for your own polution cleanup.
(I find this works better with conservatives as I call the alternative socialized air)
The "lining government coffers" approach is tired and obvious.
Fuel efficiency standards for automobiles demonstrably reduce car emissions. Fuel efficiency standards for airplanes can drive down emissions as well.
The air travel industry is predicated on taking loans against society's future environmental health for profits today. If they poured their research into looking at truly low or zero emission options they could easily argue for exemptions to emissions-based taxing and clean up the competition at the same time.
It should be a race to be green, not a race to protect the green they're making on existing business models.
- https://www.universetoday.com/143720/nasa-has-a-new-all-elec... - https://www.dw.com/en/ampaire-test-flies-worlds-biggest-elec... - https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/16/18625088/lilium-jet-test-...
A flight uses between 2 and 6 liters of kerosine per 100 km for every passenger [1]. You travel around 800-900 km per hour on a passenger plane, which means your rate of fuel use is fairly high (let's say 30 liters per hour). Putting it in these numbers allows you to compare it to filling up your car and puts some things in perspective.
Taking a flight now and then is not going to end the world. But it does provide an easy opportunity to reduce emissions.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft
Of course this assumes commercial aviation, private jets are much worse for the environment.
Curious what this is based on, taking road construction, car ownership, etc into the calculation? Because as for fuel consumption clearly it depends - if you're a family, taking 1 car is generally going to be more fuel efficient.
I think it's a boondoggle to attempt to shame people into changing their behavior when they do not have viable options.
It's perhaps a boondoggle to represent a person's life as having only a single option that requires such things.
If you want to have the sort of life that requires your flights back and forth, that's one thing -- but voluntary participation in that life is a different thing than suggesting that you're trapped by circumstance.
Why is that any different an attitude than yours? This behavior is literally killing our species. Unfortunately we don’t have a non-harmful viable alternative to the destructive behavior you enjoy. Perhaps it’s reasonable to consider changing that behavior.
Buy a ticket on a shipping vessel, for instance. It’s way slower than flying, but you can travel the world this way at a fraction of the carbon footprint.
I can do direct from Texas to Tokyo in under 13 hours. I did see ten day routes from a couple of east coast ports. However, traveling this way from Texas doesn't seem viable.
Perhaps I should expand on the definition of viable. I intended the definition: capable of working, functioning, or developing adequately
Ten days stretches the credibility of viable in my humble opinion. Not a fan of Quora, but the site suggested I could go Houston to Chiba in 26 days. Round trip would be 52 days.
I'm currently doing two round trip international flights a year. Previously I was taking four.
Two round trips would be 104 days of traveling a year on a ship versus my current 52 hours on an airplane.
It would if we could control our breeding. How guilty should you feel about having large numbers of children?
Personally, I think the whole "reduce the number of humans" solution is terrible and completely misses the mark. We don't need to reduce the number of humans, we need to increase the efficiency of each human in terms of impact on the environment. We need more innovators, not fewer, and innovators need capital, so we should be encouraging more reproduction by those with means rather than less.
Personally, I think the most practical solution is to tax pollution. Wealthy nations seem to produce far more pollution per captia than developing nation's, and developing nations adopt our bad habits. Taxing pollution increases the cost of these bad habits and encourages green innovation. We saw a move toward smaller cars in 2008 when driving became more expensive relative to income, and the same thing can happen to other aspects of our lives if living green becomes less expensive than polluting. And that culture of living green (and the cost reductions associated with innovation) will propagate to developing countries, which will decrease the average political per capita.
I don't think reducing the total population significantly is workable, and attempts are only going to remove the people who have the largest chance of solving the problem generally.
"let me fly, and tell poor people they can't have children, and sterilize them if necessary"
I also doubt that children of poor countries generate that much emissions. Reducing birthrates is a bigger effort than reducing air traffic.
The reason I take this position is because there is so much low hanging fruit that doesn't require significant lifestyle changes that we should be doing those things first and NOW before we get too worked up about lifestyle changes. I drive an electric car; for most purposes it is an exact replacement for a petrol/gasoline car. In many ways it is better (cheaper fuel, cheaper maintenance, quieter, better for air quality). In some ways, it is worse (lower range between fueling, though I find that is rarely a practical issue). My point is that, financial considerations aside, most people could easily replace their car with an electric one without seriously impacting the way they live their lives. There are many things like this which would have a huge impact without forcing people to change their habits too suddenly. Once these changes are well underway, we can look at whether and what major lifestyle changes are still needed.
These are the same people that buy products from "hip" companies like Apple which are famous for making products harder to repair and practically forces people to buy completely new devices even if something is wrong on the current one and that it easily could be repaired. Yet I have never heard about any shame owning an Apple product, most likely it's the reversed.
My point is that people are irrational and only acts on stuff that either feel, sound or looks good. Like always when a headline starts with a question, the answer is probably going to be a resounding "no".
It isn't the act of flying that makes it bad. For example, a swedish company fly with partly renewable fuel (https://www.flygbra.se/hallbarhet/boka-miljo-class/faq/) and I believe any issue can be solved with technology advancement.
We shouldn't limit ourselves because of climate change. We should instead improve the technology and make it better so it doesn't impact the climate in such a way it becomes unsustainable.
This is the core issue I have with the crazy people in my country. They complain but offer zero alternatives except "not doing that". Just compare Greta Thunberg (which is a person with zero suggestions) to Boyan Slat that actually tried to develop technology to clean up the oceans.
Greta is way more famous and have way more attention even if Boyan is far, far more admirable and actually tries to provide solutions for the future.
This is a lie. Plenty of suggestions have been made from this part of the political spectrum which are primarily based on incentivizing less damaging behaviour. The problem is that while we can reduce flying and we can reduce trips by car and we can reduce meat consumption and we can force shipping companies to use more environmentally friendly albeit more expensive fuels, none of the "technological solutions" you and other people say "should be developed" exist at the moment. By all means, feel free to invent new technologies which reduce carbon footprints and which help tackle climate change, but stop saying that really someone should develop these things so that maybe they could be used twenty years from now.
Twenty years ago, we had the option of either drastically raising taxes on CO2 or trusting that "technology" would arrive to reduce CO2 footprints. We were promised exclusively electric cars everywhere by 2020, passively cooled and heated housing etc. etc. None of those things have materialised, instead now we have people saying that we should "improve technology" and maybe in twenty years time we will have some solutions.
We really need to start acting now.
That is why you never see politicians and "influencers" etc live as they preach. Because people need to use a car, people need to fly and take boats.
What we can do is produce energy in a better way and consume it in a better way. If that means banning cars and planes that burn fuel, so be it. I am not against that. What I am against is the idea that we should stop doing stuff because our environment requires it.
I am working remotely, so I use my car more seldom that I belive many people that commutes every day. Yet, swedish companies that claim to be so environmental friendly seems to be very hostile to remote work in general.
Stuff like that is what I am against. Don't tell people how to live and then do the reverse yourself. I agree we should act now but the environmental movement is really more anti-progress than pro environment at least in Sweden in my opinion.
I think we totally should limit ourselves from the idea that it's totally normal to expect to be able to fly anywhere in the world in ~24 hours and to do this regularly.
Why would that be an issue? I think this is totally doable, if we desire.
Greta Thunberg is only here to remind every grown up to be better than how they currently are. The experts are here for the solutions. Like putting a price on CO2 emissions. Greta is only filling the spot that politicians don't want to fill. Because it is unpopular to tell everyone to consume less.
Fly less or not at al is a good thing to say because one flight takes up a lot of the budget everyone on this planet has for consumption.
The iPhone is not as impactful in its CO2 footprint as flying so telling people to take care with flying is perfectly ok.
Making laws to increase repairability is also a good measure, so demanding that isn't bad either.
As for Greta, all she's saying is that politicians should listen to the scientists and implement policies accordingly.
And just pointing out that the focus on not flying might be irrational, does not make it okay to fly as much as you want.
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
They still try and keep people from actually repairing their devices which are perfectly fine in many cases. So I believe it's still a valid point even if there could be better examples.
And honestly, you write
> updated for a long, long time
Are they really tho? A few years is not a long, long time in my opinion and even if you don't buy a new one for a couple of years and it's still updated they usually make it unbearable slow so that you cannot live with it anymore and purchase a new one. It is easy to update, but nearly impossible to go back to an older version if the new version turns out to be very slow.
My father still uses a dumphone and a windows phone. They both work surprisingly well for him, especially the windows phone. I am actually pretty amazed on the longevity of the Nokia Lumia.
Making a phone last 2-4 years is not a long time. I believe many people could easily have the same phones for 10+ years if the phone makers were interested of making that happen. They aren't though and that is a bit of an issue.
Just compare a phone to most other products and you will soon notice people update their smart phone a lot more often than most other things. Sure it's an important device but not that many people would actually need the feature upgrade every version have.
Make a phone that lasts 20 years or more and I will start to believe that you are making good, long lasting products.
If you ask me when I am feeling like a pessimist, then I don't feel great about it. My attitude is that we're 7 billion all living under one bedsheet and guilting the people who pass gas. Eventually we will all suffocate. Living as though humanity needs palliative care is disturbing. It might be the most realistic, but I can't process it every day.
If you ask me when I am feeling like an optimist, then morbidly, I feel that we have embraced driving over a cliff, but that while we are airborne, we might design wings, test them, and learn to fly before plummeting to our deaths.
If you ask me when I am feeling like a cynic, then someone is going to bioengineer a population reducer, and 1% of us will inherit the earth before 2100. That would also solve the problem, but I won't get to be around to enjoy it.
Here's the rub, none of these require me to do anything differently. Now tell me how I can add a fourth option that I can genuinely believe has some reasonable metric for improving our chances. I'm having such a hard time finding it, and I think that people like me, left to compound their depressed thoughts, invariably turn into the enemy on this global effort. Anyone, please?
Not necessarily. If the 1% fly around in private jets regularly we'll be worse off.
> fourth option
The only solution is political and global. A carbon tax & tariff is the best option I'm aware of, but there are others.
https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-riding/