Numerous flights cancelled after climate activists gain access to tarmacs at Hamburg, Dusseldorf airports, glue themselves to ground, local media reports - Anadolu Ajansı
Commercial aviation is one of the biggest CO2 emitters.
But point that out to all the travel obsessed millennials who want to brag about their Prius and their composet pile… and they tell you what an awful person you are. lol
A 4 hr train trip vs a flight is about a 1000x difference in CO output.
I don’t travel much because it’s one of the most environmentally destructive things any single average person can do. Not traveling is way more green than buying a Prius/EV. But it seems to be the #1 social status marker among the under 40 set. Esp among young women.
Aviation is responsible for around 2% of emissions, but it’s also the global connector. While we should refrain from flying when possible just counting on individuals to take the best behavior won’t work.
What should be done:
ban private jets
end all the tax perks for aviation, which allow for insanely cheap tickets that promote senseless flying
ban short over-land flights
simplify ticketing and reduce prices on international trains in Europe, it’s almost always too expensive to cross borders by train in Europe, it makes no sense.
We need aviation, but we also need it to be sensible in a warming planet.
Or, hear me out, make it unnecessary to travel distances beyond a day of walking. Work from home was a blessing during the Pandemic, why can’t we make it the standard?
Fair enough; I wasn’t commenting on the idea one way or another, just trying to clarify what I thought the other commenter meant.
Personally, I’m almost never in favor of a ban. I’d rather tax heavily and use the income for programs to offset. I’m 20 years removed from optimism about reducing emissions, so I think we should be leaning into technology that can actively pull stuff out of the atmosphere. That could create an incentive to move away from flying but also use the flying that’s still happening to fund figuring out how to reverse the damage that’s already been done.
From a per-distance standpoint a flight is hardly any worse than driving alone. Cars are just that bad for the environment (and have fewer inspections for compliance and can afford to dump more particulates into the environment).
The single most environmentally destructive thing that people can do is drive. Fortunately, it’s also the single most lethal thing that people can do. Even more fortunately, it’s also insanely expensive to do. Even more more fortunately, a lack of car-based development allows for greater density and thus reduced mobility needs in general.
In working papers released over the past two years, Sivak has attempted to overturn the conventional wisdom: His main recent finding is that the average energy intensity of driving is about twice that of flying, a conclusion based on the current average on-road fuel economy of cars, pick-up trucks, SUVs, and vans (21.6 mpg).
Commercial aviation is one of the biggest CO2 emitters.
But point that out to all the travel obsessed millennials who want to brag about their Prius and their composet pile… and they tell you what an awful person you are. lol
A 4 hr train trip vs a flight is about a 1000x difference in CO output.
I don’t travel much because it’s one of the most environmentally destructive things any single average person can do. Not traveling is way more green than buying a Prius/EV. But it seems to be the #1 social status marker among the under 40 set. Esp among young women.
Aviation is responsible for around 2% of emissions, but it’s also the global connector. While we should refrain from flying when possible just counting on individuals to take the best behavior won’t work.
What should be done:
We need aviation, but we also need it to be sensible in a warming planet.
Or, hear me out, make it unnecessary to travel distances beyond a day of walking. Work from home was a blessing during the Pandemic, why can’t we make it the standard?
Because I want to see the world while I am here and not just a circumference of human-powered locomotion.
I agree with everything there but a ban on short distance flights. If the prices reflect the costs let people fly.
The problem is that that only happens because aviation gets tax perks that trains or buses don’t.
I think the point he’s making is that our second bullet of your list would make the third bullet unnecessary.
There’s some redundancy, but a ban solves the issue instantly and also creates a strong incentive for better ground transport.
Fair enough; I wasn’t commenting on the idea one way or another, just trying to clarify what I thought the other commenter meant.
Personally, I’m almost never in favor of a ban. I’d rather tax heavily and use the income for programs to offset. I’m 20 years removed from optimism about reducing emissions, so I think we should be leaning into technology that can actively pull stuff out of the atmosphere. That could create an incentive to move away from flying but also use the flying that’s still happening to fund figuring out how to reverse the damage that’s already been done.
Got news for ya, way more boomers are flying than millennials. Millennials are broke.
From a per-distance standpoint a flight is hardly any worse than driving alone. Cars are just that bad for the environment (and have fewer inspections for compliance and can afford to dump more particulates into the environment).
The single most environmentally destructive thing that people can do is drive. Fortunately, it’s also the single most lethal thing that people can do. Even more fortunately, it’s also insanely expensive to do. Even more more fortunately, a lack of car-based development allows for greater density and thus reduced mobility needs in general.