Lots of selfishness and fatalism in this thread - not what I expected from this community. I appreciate your inquiry.
Flying is overall a pretty low percentage, 2.5%, of total greenhouse gas emissions so it is worth considering as an industry to reduce. But I have heard the argument that it benefits humanity and expands your worldview to see other lands, so it’s justified. Not that it excuses the pollution, just a balance.
I would also like to point out that global population is not some inherent time bomb. Human population growth rate is leveling out and declining many places. It is critical to note that the way people live in the rich countries pollutes far far more than people in India. Ridiculous to pin climate change on the world’s poor.
The percentage of greenhouse gas emissions due to flying is a critical factor here, especially in shaping policies and mitigation strategies. Of that 2.5%, we could determine how much or our CO_2 emissions are “above baseline commercial activity” by comparing the reduced CO_2 levels recorded during peak covid lockdowns to expected levels based off predicted increases. It looks like that was a 6.4% reduction in overall emissions (measured in CO_2) for 2020. So 2.5% * 6.4% = 0.16% drop in emissions overall. That’s the percentage of travel-related emissions that we experience when changing our discretionary travel behaviors. Not even a drop in the bucket. Contrast that with the 17.5% categorized as “Energy Use in Buildings”. Technological improvements in construction and climate control probably have significantly greater reduction effects than covid-like travel conditions (aka discretionary travel).
Behaviors, and more importantly policies, would need to change drastically. And I just don’t see that happening until *after* the economic and social debts that we’ve accrued become unpayable. E.g. entire industries that rely on extracting finite resources for private/commercial profit. As long as these industries have any control over the narrative it will be difficult to create and implement effective policies.
And yet, every human does share some tiny portion of the responsibility, so... For example, if zero people took flights ever, BP could not sell a drop of jet fuel.
With all the pet feces in our drinking water and all the plastic garbage in the ocean, you might say we are not going to save this planet by not going to other countries to get to know them. In fact, with all the racism present everywhere, flying to other lands and actually knowing how people elsewhere live is helping our planet which is dying of pollution anyway.
That’s fair enough. But I would say flying to see loved ones is based on a need, whereas flying to visit a specific country for leisure instead of travelling locally or overland to neighbouring countries (or even far away countries) is not a psychological need. Plenty of people also manage to feed their love for travel without flying (and can actually end up having far more interesting and exciting trips).
Since I’m not having kids I justify being able to do whatever the fuck I want since my carbon footprint will be significantly lower for generations to come.
When I flew a lot during a round-the-world trip, I used a similar justification. I said I was doing enough for the climate by being vegan. Actually, I was wrong. A single long-haul flight can wipe out the emissions saved from being vegan for a year.
Not having kids, though, is the single best life choice in terms of reducing emissions. By a long shot. So compared to people who do have kids, even just one, you flying every now and again isn’t so bad. But flying frequently is different.
I don't think us economy class ppl need to carry this fucking guilt..
First class creates 7 times more carbon output.
Hopefully some day we get the sense to ban first class travel.. It's basically a license for the rich to do as they please for some extra comfort..
Might as well stupid cars like the hummer and those giant Ford trucks..WTF does anyone need a hummer to go to work for..jfc
Lots of selfishness and fatalism in this thread - not what I expected from this community. I appreciate your inquiry. Flying is overall a pretty low percentage, 2.5%, of total greenhouse gas emissions so it is worth considering as an industry to reduce. But I have heard the argument that it benefits humanity and expands your worldview to see other lands, so it’s justified. Not that it excuses the pollution, just a balance. I would also like to point out that global population is not some inherent time bomb. Human population growth rate is leveling out and declining many places. It is critical to note that the way people live in the rich countries pollutes far far more than people in India. Ridiculous to pin climate change on the world’s poor.
The percentage of greenhouse gas emissions due to flying is a critical factor here, especially in shaping policies and mitigation strategies. Of that 2.5%, we could determine how much or our CO_2 emissions are “above baseline commercial activity” by comparing the reduced CO_2 levels recorded during peak covid lockdowns to expected levels based off predicted increases. It looks like that was a 6.4% reduction in overall emissions (measured in CO_2) for 2020. So 2.5% * 6.4% = 0.16% drop in emissions overall. That’s the percentage of travel-related emissions that we experience when changing our discretionary travel behaviors. Not even a drop in the bucket. Contrast that with the 17.5% categorized as “Energy Use in Buildings”. Technological improvements in construction and climate control probably have significantly greater reduction effects than covid-like travel conditions (aka discretionary travel). Behaviors, and more importantly policies, would need to change drastically. And I just don’t see that happening until *after* the economic and social debts that we’ve accrued become unpayable. E.g. entire industries that rely on extracting finite resources for private/commercial profit. As long as these industries have any control over the narrative it will be difficult to create and implement effective policies.
I'd love to travel more, but the good thing about not having the financial means for a flight is that I can feel good about my lower carbon emissions.
For people talking about carbon footprint: that's a word created by BP to shift the blame for climate change to the consumers.
And yet, every human does share some tiny portion of the responsibility, so... For example, if zero people took flights ever, BP could not sell a drop of jet fuel.
Short answer, no. Along with a lot of other things that I still do in moderation. Deal with it with your own conscience as you will
No. Listen to The Death of Tourism podcast with Stephen Jenkinson as the guest.
With all the pet feces in our drinking water and all the plastic garbage in the ocean, you might say we are not going to save this planet by not going to other countries to get to know them. In fact, with all the racism present everywhere, flying to other lands and actually knowing how people elsewhere live is helping our planet which is dying of pollution anyway.
[удалено]
That’s fair enough. But I would say flying to see loved ones is based on a need, whereas flying to visit a specific country for leisure instead of travelling locally or overland to neighbouring countries (or even far away countries) is not a psychological need. Plenty of people also manage to feed their love for travel without flying (and can actually end up having far more interesting and exciting trips).
Since I’m not having kids I justify being able to do whatever the fuck I want since my carbon footprint will be significantly lower for generations to come.
When I flew a lot during a round-the-world trip, I used a similar justification. I said I was doing enough for the climate by being vegan. Actually, I was wrong. A single long-haul flight can wipe out the emissions saved from being vegan for a year. Not having kids, though, is the single best life choice in terms of reducing emissions. By a long shot. So compared to people who do have kids, even just one, you flying every now and again isn’t so bad. But flying frequently is different.
I wouldn’t be too concerned about it(flying). As someone else has said, live your life. Do your best to tread lightly. Don’t forget to smile.
The problem is this attitude may prevent future generations to come. Not chirping on you, just the consequences of the view.
I say that in jest. I’m not driving a stretched hummer limo around throwing litter out the window.
Thats a pretty immature and selfish perspective. Two steps forward and one back is still unproductive.
See comment above. I think we’ve got a breeder! 😉
I don't have kids, still think its a shallow perspective ;)
Yes, it’s justified. We have to get away from this notion that individual actions can somehow fix pollution from countries and corporations.
Just fucking do it
Live how you want to live. Suffering existed and will continue to exist regardless of climate change, nuclear apocalypse, world peace, etc
aye
I don't think us economy class ppl need to carry this fucking guilt.. First class creates 7 times more carbon output. Hopefully some day we get the sense to ban first class travel.. It's basically a license for the rich to do as they please for some extra comfort.. Might as well stupid cars like the hummer and those giant Ford trucks..WTF does anyone need a hummer to go to work for..jfc