If Seeing the World Helps Ruin It, Should We Stay Home?(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
If Seeing the World Helps Ruin It, Should We Stay Home?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/03/travel/traveling-climate-change.html
111 comments
I think something missing from this, is that people wouldn't just stop doing things. People will still want to travel, and have air conditioning, so large incentives will exist to develop technologies that make this possible without the emissions. The greener alternatives will be relatively less expensive when the externalities of fossil fuels are priced in.
We really have to push for new technologies and be ok with subsidizing them in order to help mass adoption and lower prices. Only a few people really think we should stop doing X or Y (even if they are really vocal). Instead of feeling bad, let us find a better solution that actually makes life even more worthwile. Why not aim for making travelling cheaper and even more available, while at the same time make it environmental friendly, quiter, better? See, I am a private pilot for example. And I HATE those combustion engines we still use on our Cessnas. So outdated, loud and they are quite unreliable. I would totally LOVE the day when I can do a 500k trip with the family using electric technology, as most probably this will be a lot safer to use, it will be quiter and a lot cheaper to fuek (good news: it looks like fouseater planes with good range will become a reality soon).Or thin about cruiseships: why not find a way to use hydrogen (which could be a side product of using renewable energies). Or go back to big sailships again. I do not know about you, but to me, a sustainable future simply looks and feels amazing. We have to change things, but if done right, we don't really have to stop things.
> I would totally LOVE the day when I can do a 500k trip with the family using electric technology
This seems to be fairly close. The Pipistrel Panthera looks quite promising, for instance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipistrel_Panthera#Specificati... "Hybrid range is 758 mi or 1,220 km; Electric range is 249 mi or 400 km"
> I do not know about you, but to me, a sustainable future simply looks and feels amazing.
I agree. Losing our technological dependence on fossil fuels is very freeing. I can imagine this resulting in a future where energy is also a lot cheaper, as there is a lot of potential for solar and nuclear power to see reductions in cost as the technologies improve and benefit from economies of scale. Conversely oil and gas become scarcer and more expensive.
This seems to be fairly close. The Pipistrel Panthera looks quite promising, for instance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipistrel_Panthera#Specificati... "Hybrid range is 758 mi or 1,220 km; Electric range is 249 mi or 400 km"
> I do not know about you, but to me, a sustainable future simply looks and feels amazing.
I agree. Losing our technological dependence on fossil fuels is very freeing. I can imagine this resulting in a future where energy is also a lot cheaper, as there is a lot of potential for solar and nuclear power to see reductions in cost as the technologies improve and benefit from economies of scale. Conversely oil and gas become scarcer and more expensive.
I did not know about the Pathera, personally I was thinking about that one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bye_Aerospace_Sun_Flyer_4
Even if we could force a stop there's no telling if it wouldn't be counterproductive in the sense that to some degree it is difficult to predict how interfering with complex systems tends to pans out. People use vacations as a means to blow off steam and it only requires a fair bit of imagination to see what could possibly go wrong when people suddenly aint allowed to handle their stress the way they know of anymore.
The recent argument against traveling is a proxy war. Heating, cooling, electricity and driving are the things that make up 75% of the emissions, plus about 20% for industrial production. All of the points I listed can be replaced by sustainable alternatives TODAY (ok, maybe not all people in one year, but the products are available) without us having to reduce out comfort in a major way. We could travel 5 times more than now when we switched away from technology mostly invented about 120 years ago and still have a better environment.
> Heating, cooling, electricity and driving are the things that make up 75% of the emissions, plus about 20% for industrial production.
I would like to append, that meat production is very significant (and probably overlooked) factor of climate change gas emissions and has colossal damage to the global ecosystem at current consumption levels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_p...
I would like to append, that meat production is very significant (and probably overlooked) factor of climate change gas emissions and has colossal damage to the global ecosystem at current consumption levels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_p...
Really - what solution is there for heating and cooling? Especially given that insulating houses with plastic seems to cause other problems like mold, or pollution with toxins to prevent mold?
And driving? People could just stay home, I suppose?
And driving? People could just stay home, I suppose?
> And driving? People could just stay home, I suppose?
Walk. Bicycle. Use public transit. In extremity, buy an electric car (but that has issues, too).
If your question is "what should people who live, heavily subsidized, in suburbs and exurbs, do?", then the answer teases itself out pretty elegantly.
Walk. Bicycle. Use public transit. In extremity, buy an electric car (but that has issues, too).
If your question is "what should people who live, heavily subsidized, in suburbs and exurbs, do?", then the answer teases itself out pretty elegantly.
Building housing produces a lot of CO2, too.
So if you suggest all people living in the countryside should move into cities, you are also taking about a huge economic undertaking that would also produce huge amounts of CO2.
Presumably some people are also needed in the countryside, to do the farming, and support the farmers.
Subsidizing suburbs is of course stupid. But simply rolling everything back is not really feasible.
Even in the past when people moved to the suburbs, presumably they did so because living in the city would have been prohibitively expensive.
So if you suggest all people living in the countryside should move into cities, you are also taking about a huge economic undertaking that would also produce huge amounts of CO2.
Presumably some people are also needed in the countryside, to do the farming, and support the farmers.
Subsidizing suburbs is of course stupid. But simply rolling everything back is not really feasible.
Even in the past when people moved to the suburbs, presumably they did so because living in the city would have been prohibitively expensive.
That presumption doesn't hold. It's pretty well understood, sociologically, that the creators of suburbs moved to the suburbs in no small part to attain racial homogeneity.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight
Cities used to be inexpensive. Not cheap, but not crushing. (We made them less so by letting up on the development of housing.)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight
Cities used to be inexpensive. Not cheap, but not crushing. (We made them less so by letting up on the development of housing.)
Not even the link you provide supports your argument. Maybe at some times or for some time it was a motivating factor, but it is really stretching the narrative a lot to claim it is the determining factor.
Is that seriously your world view? I think then you are too eager to swallow simplistic explanations.
And even if "white flight" were the determining factor, it would be another step to claim the goal was "racial homogeneity". People might simply have wanted to move into nicer neighborhoods. (see checkerboard experiment, described in you linked Wikipedia article). White people might have been more likely to be wealthy enough to afford the "flight" (wasn't that what rich people always did throughout the centuries). Even if they were more wealthy because of racism (which would in itself be worthy of debate), it doesn't imply their flight was driven by desire for racial homogeneity.
I live in a country where such race relations are not an issue, and people moved to the countryside here, too. It was also subsidized or used to be subsidized, for various reasons. Also simply mass availability of cars might have been a factor. Remember, cars were not available to everybody for most of human history.
Cities being inexpensive - a lot of factors play into it, probably. Pollution could have made them unattractive and therefore cheap, in the early days of industrialization. One example. Housing restrictions - OK, but also more people moving there. Better job availability. And so on. Your world view is too simplistic imo.
Is that seriously your world view? I think then you are too eager to swallow simplistic explanations.
And even if "white flight" were the determining factor, it would be another step to claim the goal was "racial homogeneity". People might simply have wanted to move into nicer neighborhoods. (see checkerboard experiment, described in you linked Wikipedia article). White people might have been more likely to be wealthy enough to afford the "flight" (wasn't that what rich people always did throughout the centuries). Even if they were more wealthy because of racism (which would in itself be worthy of debate), it doesn't imply their flight was driven by desire for racial homogeneity.
I live in a country where such race relations are not an issue, and people moved to the countryside here, too. It was also subsidized or used to be subsidized, for various reasons. Also simply mass availability of cars might have been a factor. Remember, cars were not available to everybody for most of human history.
Cities being inexpensive - a lot of factors play into it, probably. Pollution could have made them unattractive and therefore cheap, in the early days of industrialization. One example. Housing restrictions - OK, but also more people moving there. Better job availability. And so on. Your world view is too simplistic imo.
Why the dismissive attitude about where people live?
If you are consciously making decisions to not live a carbon heavy life, you'd naturally choose to not live in a ex/suburb.
So we should all pile into cities? Do you realize how ridiculous that is? We can't concentrate everyone in a walkable / bikeable area, it's just not feasible.
Everyone? No. There are legitimate economic activities in non-urban places; there's unavoidable resource extraction, there are agricultural activities, that sort of thing.
Most people? Sure. It requires re-thinking how we (Americans particularly) structure our cities, and will not be an overnight process, but what is preventing us from doing this generally? Aside from the idea that such re-thinking is impossible, anyway.
Most people? Sure. It requires re-thinking how we (Americans particularly) structure our cities, and will not be an overnight process, but what is preventing us from doing this generally? Aside from the idea that such re-thinking is impossible, anyway.
> but what is preventing us from doing this generally
The fact that people don't actually want to do that? People are free to live their lives the way they want. There's no reason to pile most people into cities just "because cars"
The fact that people don't actually want to do that? People are free to live their lives the way they want. There's no reason to pile most people into cities just "because cars"
Are they free to consume more and more limited resources in doing so without fairly compensating the body politic for that consumption?
Or, put more bluntly: why must I and my children pay for them?
Or, put more bluntly: why must I and my children pay for them?
If they have proper right to those resources then they certainly can consume them however they want.
Beyond the basic rights afforded by civil society one has remarkably few rights without corresponding responsibilities. Consumption comes with a lot of them. How are you proposing to fairly and equitably address those while leaving a better world for our children?
Not sure what methodology you follow, but freedom means freedom. If I don't care to leave a better world than that's my right. It doesn't make me a good person but freedom is freedom.
Saying people should avoid living in pleasant environments so conserve resources is nearly identical to saying people should avoid traveling to pleasant environments to convert resources. What point are you trying to make?
I could travel a lot and not get into the carbon footprint of your average 10K+-a-year commuter. So people who think those are desirable places to live should actually pay for what they consume, instead of freeloading--both economically and ecologically--off of those who do.
From what I see, you could do about 18K short-haul or 30K airline passenger miles to match the CO2e emissions of a 10K commuter (assuming you yourself have a carbon-free commute). 30K is you and 2 guests round-trip San Francisco to Paris or you and one guest one round-trip L.A. to Sydney.
I agree you could do a lot of hiking or road trips and fit within that footprint.
I agree you could do a lot of hiking or road trips and fit within that footprint.
Really - you can't think of any solutions for heating and cooling houses without burning fossil fuels? Electric baseboard heaters have been a thing forever, just power those with solar or wind or nuclear and we're done. My air conditioner is already electric.
Drive an electric car, and buy renewable electricity.
Drive an electric car, and buy renewable electricity.
Renewable energy is not really a proven concept yet.
If it were so easy, people would already be doing it.
It's fine to work towards using more renewables, but you can't simply say "just use renewables, problems solved".
If it were so easy, people would already be doing it.
It's fine to work towards using more renewables, but you can't simply say "just use renewables, problems solved".
> Renewable energy is not really a proven concept yet.
What do you mean by this?
What do you mean by this?
That it is not proven that you could replace all energy sources with renewable energy. Also the CO2 impact of "renewables" seems to be significant as well. So it is not a given that even with renewables, you would become CO2 neutral.
Not even mentioning other side effects (destruction of nature).
Not even mentioning other side effects (destruction of nature).
The problem I see though is that "drive an electric car" is interpreted all too often as "buy an electric car, and now that you're 'green', do not worry yourself about the fact that you change cars every two years and the footprint of your gas consumption is dwarfed by the footprint of actually making the cars pat self in back".
I don't think electric cars break down after two years. Maybe the battery may give problems after a while, but that should be replaceable.
I'm not implying they break down. I'm saying that people like to drive cars with "new car smell". I'm against unnecessary green-washed conspicuous consumption.
Indeed, buying a new electric cars like our grandfathers bought their Fords would be totally counterproductive. But I do not think we have to stop using cars to be quite sustainable - we just have to stop thinking there are only Teslas with their big battery and that everyone needs 500km of nonstop range. Speaking for my family: we currently still feel we need a 7-seat family car with a lot of range, but our second car will be replaced by an electric car with a small battery for sure, as we counted that on about 95% of the days, a 100km range will totally do. Smaller batteries make elektric cars a much more ecologic choice. And we as a society also have to stop thinking that cars have to be the big monsters they have become. We need new offerings, such as the Microlino or the Renault Twizzy.
"our second car"
Sorry, but I had to lol about that. Yeah alright, go green on your second car.
Sorry, but I had to lol about that. Yeah alright, go green on your second car.
Most households have two cars, so I don't understand what you find funny about that.
Not really, no. Maybe in rural America. But in the rest of the world, it is not normal.
It's normal in suburban America and much of urban America as well, outside of the largest few cities. I'm not saying it's good or bad, but it is normal here.
Fine - so I am laughing from across the pond, where it is not normal. Not in the cities.
In the cities in Europe, you don't really need a car, let alone two. From that perspective, pondering going green on a second car looks a bit funny.
In the cities in Europe, you don't really need a car, let alone two. From that perspective, pondering going green on a second car looks a bit funny.
That seems like a separate issue to me, the general consumerism around wanting a new car/phone/widget every year or two. For the time being though, I don't think that's necessarily a problem with electric cars. Sure, some people will sell their electric car and buy a new one every two years, but that creates a used electric car that someone who can't afford a new Tesla can buy, thus removing another ICE vehicle from the road. Of course in an ideal world we'd all drive our 1995 Honda Civics until they rust out from under us and THEN buy an electric car... but that's not realistic.
Here's a video I liked on the carbon costs associated w/ gas & electric cars. Check out video's sources for further reading.
https://youtu.be/6RhtiPefVzM -- "Are Electric Cars Worse For The Environment? Myth Busted" -- Engineering Explained
https://youtu.be/6RhtiPefVzM -- "Are Electric Cars Worse For The Environment? Myth Busted" -- Engineering Explained
Electric cars aren't worse for the environment. Consumerism is.
Changing cars every two years?
> what solution is there for heating and cooling?
Heat pumps, powered by sustainable electricity. (nuclear; renewables)
Heat pumps, powered by sustainable electricity. (nuclear; renewables)
"Passivhaus" designs significantly reduce this energy need without running into mould problems.
Don't they still require insulation? What do they use?
It doesn't seem feasible to convert all housing to passive houses in a short time span, either.
It doesn't seem feasible to convert all housing to passive houses in a short time span, either.
No.
Leading a completely utilitarian life based only on the metric of estimating the emissions produced by your actions (and then, only first-order effects) is not only completely infeasible, but is also not a solution to global warming.
Leading a completely utilitarian life based only on the metric of estimating the emissions produced by your actions (and then, only first-order effects) is not only completely infeasible, but is also not a solution to global warming.
We are talking about a comparatively pointless activity with a huge carbon footprint. There are plenty of other ways to enjoy life.
The Tragedy of the Commons prevent this. You cannot solve it solely by making yourself "use nothing" when others will abuse that to take more for themselves.
It will not solve the problem when the rich have enough resources to do the ruining themselves no matter what you do.
It will not solve the problem when the rich have enough resources to do the ruining themselves no matter what you do.
If we take climate change activists at their word, the answer is a resounding YES. There is a full-blown crisis brewing, one that can only be resolved with massive social changes ("if everyone does a little, we’ll achieve only a little" [1]). The NYT should be pushing much more draconian measures.
[1] https://www.withouthotair.com/c1/page_3.shtml
[1] https://www.withouthotair.com/c1/page_3.shtml
I think there is a PR war going on to push the responsibility of climate crisis fixes onto personal actions in order to avoid actual widescale industrial changes. We can create fuel from carbon and at least for the air sector it makes reasonable sense - even if that increases the cost of travel. Airlines like other corporations want to avoid specific requirements like that that as a regulation.
You can curb the consumption of anything with a tax, unfortunately getting the political capital to implement one is another thing. It looks sadly like the climate will have to change quite a bit more until that possible
No mention of rail?
Not a solution in the US, but virtually all of Europe and Asia is connected by a dense, largely inexpensive, rail network which is increasingly being electrified. That puts the onus on the grid, but there is a trend towards lower carbon electricity so emissions should lower over time. You can walk and cycle the rest of the way.
The reason we fly is because its cheap, fast and convenient.
Not a solution in the US, but virtually all of Europe and Asia is connected by a dense, largely inexpensive, rail network which is increasingly being electrified. That puts the onus on the grid, but there is a trend towards lower carbon electricity so emissions should lower over time. You can walk and cycle the rest of the way.
The reason we fly is because its cheap, fast and convenient.
As someone who loves being out in the wilderness, this has been fairly depressing to me. The more time I spend out there, the more I damage it. I didn't feel guilty during the winter, because I was always moving on snow, and I was generally the only one out there. But as it gets warmer and the snow melts, hoards of people from Seattle descend on the wilderness and trample it to death. And I'm one of them.
Wait, walking outside is a sin now
It is when 10,000 people want to walk in the same place
No - stay on trails in high traffic areas and know the basic Leave No Trace principles:
https://lnt.org/why/7-principles/
https://lnt.org/why/7-principles/
Have you ever hiked the AT? Or certain sections of the PCT? The trail is cut 2-3 feet into the ground in some places. To stake out a tent, you have to drive stakes into fragile alpine soil, which then runs off down the mountain the next time it rains. Leaving no trace is easier said than done.
Yes, of course it's impossible to literally leave zero trace, but with education and the intent to respect nature, it's possible to radically reduce ones impact to the point where no one should feel guilty about enjoying the natural environment.
In many areas (such as delicate alpine areas) that's managed through permitting and restrictions on the numbers of people, though of course it still requires those permitted people to follow best practices and attempt to minimize their impact.
In many areas (such as delicate alpine areas) that's managed through permitting and restrictions on the numbers of people, though of course it still requires those permitted people to follow best practices and attempt to minimize their impact.
Individual actions can't solve a collective problem. I can go vegetarian, walk everywhere, never take a plane or ship for my entire life and all of that savings would be eaten up by a supertanker burning bunker fuel going a few miles off course or a chemical company vomiting waste into a river. The only way to solve these problems is at the national government and international organization level.
> “The average American causes through his/her greenhouse gas emissions the serious suffering and/or deaths of two future people.”
But if those future people are two Americans (or similar in terms of pollution), that saves four future people, doesn't it?
That was a ridiculous assumption of course, but if we're going to go utilitarian, let's go all the way.
But if those future people are two Americans (or similar in terms of pollution), that saves four future people, doesn't it?
That was a ridiculous assumption of course, but if we're going to go utilitarian, let's go all the way.
Pursuant to the arguments that ships are "even worse" than planes, it is worth noting that a lot of ships (especially cargo) are built specifically to burn bunker fuel (residual oil left over after gasoline, diesel and other light hydrocarbons are extracted from crude oil). This is partly because the thought is that _someone_ will burn it, so you might as well use it in the middle of the ocean, away from all the pollutants generated by the land bound population.
And realistically, that's the best thing you can do for the environment until such time as literally everyone on earth agrees to not use it (which is staggeringly unlikely). Because by burning on its own in the middle of nowhere, the ecosystem is can handle it without fuss. Whereas burning it on land (in a power plant presumably), you merely help overload that ecosystem since it is already having to handle everything else.
And realistically, that's the best thing you can do for the environment until such time as literally everyone on earth agrees to not use it (which is staggeringly unlikely). Because by burning on its own in the middle of nowhere, the ecosystem is can handle it without fuss. Whereas burning it on land (in a power plant presumably), you merely help overload that ecosystem since it is already having to handle everything else.
Bunker fuel is "crackable". It can be made into lighter fuels and the sulphur removed, it's just expensive to do so.
No. Here is what we actually should do: http://www.kimnicholas.com/uploads/2/5/7/6/25766487/fig1full...
Upd: apart from the carbon tax, of course.
Upd: apart from the carbon tax, of course.
We should actually solve the problem collectively. The externalities should be priced into the cost of fossil fuels with taxation, and alternative technologies researched (which would likely be done by the private sector, facing a carbon tax).
Individualistic solutions to climate change are unfair, dilute, and primitivist.
Individualistic solutions to climate change are unfair, dilute, and primitivist.
I mean, transatlantic flight is #3 on that list. If however you want to target directly #1, then i hope people from africa are seeing this.
Yes.
Consumerism and conspicuous consumption include travel and other services.
You can instead stay home and read a book. Perhaps on a slow, eco-friendly journey every few years.
Consumerism and conspicuous consumption include travel and other services.
You can instead stay home and read a book. Perhaps on a slow, eco-friendly journey every few years.
Who is it I'm saving the world for if not myself or my children?
He didn't say you shouldn't have kids.
My kids read books, too.
My kids read books, too.
Sadly, a lot of people say we shouldn't have kids because it's bad for the Earth. Which ties to poor arguments about "overpopulation".
What are poor arguments about overpopulation? Clearly overpopulation is part of the problem.
Is it? When countries modernize their economies, the birth rate plummets to near-replacement rates over the course of about two generations. Take Iran, for example. In 1980, their birthrate was around 6. Today, it's lower than Europe. What population growth we're seeing today is mostly due to increased lifespan, not high birth rates.
First, I think most population growth is in "3rd world countries", so your theory of increased lifespan being the culprit doesn't really hold.
The theory that growth slows with economic improvements is nice, but it is not a law of nature. Besides even with no more growth, we still have billions of people who want to raise their lifestyle to Western levels, increasing their CO2 footprint by orders of magnitude.
And another way to look at it: if there were only 10000 humans on earth, they would probably have a difficult time trying to move CO2 levels by a significant amount, or producing significant amounts of plastic, and so on. So clearly population size is a part of the problem.
The theory that growth slows with economic improvements is nice, but it is not a law of nature. Besides even with no more growth, we still have billions of people who want to raise their lifestyle to Western levels, increasing their CO2 footprint by orders of magnitude.
And another way to look at it: if there were only 10000 humans on earth, they would probably have a difficult time trying to move CO2 levels by a significant amount, or producing significant amounts of plastic, and so on. So clearly population size is a part of the problem.
Look at the numbers. Look at the numbers. Look at the numbers. Do not make assumptions. You're right, most high birth rate is in "third world countries"... but only some of them. Others see their birth rates drop dramatically over the course of a couple of generations, until they're at the same level as "developed" countries. And this maps almost directly to economic development.
So what happens? The drop in birth rates happens concurrently with an increase in lifespans, due to eliminating disease, increasing food security, etc. This leads to an overhang of a couple of generations on old-world birthrates but new-world life expectancy - hence, population growth, even while the birth rate plummets. But give those countries a couple more generations for this hump to age out, and their population growth will level off, just like it has in older developed countries that saw their birth rates drop in the first half of the 20th century. That's just math.
So what happens? The drop in birth rates happens concurrently with an increase in lifespans, due to eliminating disease, increasing food security, etc. This leads to an overhang of a couple of generations on old-world birthrates but new-world life expectancy - hence, population growth, even while the birth rate plummets. But give those countries a couple more generations for this hump to age out, and their population growth will level off, just like it has in older developed countries that saw their birth rates drop in the first half of the 20th century. That's just math.
As I said, even without growth, there are already Billions of people hungry for a more CO2 intense lifestyle.
And for example birth rates dropping off could still mean more births than, say, 50 years ago, because overall there are more people. (I'm too lazy to look up the numbers, because as I said, there already are a lot of people).
So if it all evens out eventually - what population size will we have reached by then?
And once again - birth rates dropping off is not actually a law of nature. For how long has that effect been noticed, anyway? Industrial revolution, and good contraceptives, have not been available for very long. There may well be other phenomena emerging that counteract it.
Edit: here is a chart showing that while birth rates are falling in most places, absolute number of births has been steadily increasing in the last 65 years: https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate#births-globally
Absolute number of births increased 40% since 1950, from 100 Million to 140 Million per year.
And for example birth rates dropping off could still mean more births than, say, 50 years ago, because overall there are more people. (I'm too lazy to look up the numbers, because as I said, there already are a lot of people).
So if it all evens out eventually - what population size will we have reached by then?
And once again - birth rates dropping off is not actually a law of nature. For how long has that effect been noticed, anyway? Industrial revolution, and good contraceptives, have not been available for very long. There may well be other phenomena emerging that counteract it.
Edit: here is a chart showing that while birth rates are falling in most places, absolute number of births has been steadily increasing in the last 65 years: https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate#births-globally
Absolute number of births increased 40% since 1950, from 100 Million to 140 Million per year.
Population should level out around 11B, assuming no big surprises/shocks. And people aren't hungry for a more CO2 intense lifestyle - just a richer one. That's why getting off fossil fuels is so incredibly vital. Luckily, I think that moment is upon us, and we'll see fossil use die off over the next few decades. Renewables aren't just cleaner, they're cheaper now.
And I don't think your chart proves your point. While the absolute number of births has increased, it has increased far less than the population as a whole (the population has tripled since 1951 - the increase in number of births is less than half the increase in number of people). Keep scrolling down the page of your link, and you see massive, massive declines in birthrates worldwide, with an extensive list of reasons why.
So why would you think "there may be other phenomena emerging that counteract it"? Like what? Are you sure you aren't just clinging to a belief in population spiraling out of control that is at odds with observed facts? Because what you believe is what most people believe. And it's wrong.
And I don't think your chart proves your point. While the absolute number of births has increased, it has increased far less than the population as a whole (the population has tripled since 1951 - the increase in number of births is less than half the increase in number of people). Keep scrolling down the page of your link, and you see massive, massive declines in birthrates worldwide, with an extensive list of reasons why.
So why would you think "there may be other phenomena emerging that counteract it"? Like what? Are you sure you aren't just clinging to a belief in population spiraling out of control that is at odds with observed facts? Because what you believe is what most people believe. And it's wrong.
Your belief that everything could just be solved with renewables is incredibly naive. It's simply not proven that it can be done yet. And even renewables produce a lot of CO2. Even if they produce less than fossile fuels, the needs for 11 Billion people would be significant.
A richer lifestyle means more CO2.
I don't even know where you get your beliefs from, that CO2 neutral life would be easy and cheap.
As for counteracting phenomena: again, it is not a law of nature that birth rates drop as people get wealthier. Even now for example there are subgroups in wealthy nations that still have high birth rates. I'm not saying it WILL happen, just that it can. And 50 years are not a very long timespan to observe to be assured about the effect of dropping birth rates.
A richer lifestyle means more CO2.
I don't even know where you get your beliefs from, that CO2 neutral life would be easy and cheap.
As for counteracting phenomena: again, it is not a law of nature that birth rates drop as people get wealthier. Even now for example there are subgroups in wealthy nations that still have high birth rates. I'm not saying it WILL happen, just that it can. And 50 years are not a very long timespan to observe to be assured about the effect of dropping birth rates.
Humanity's grand-grand-grand-grand-children.
The only way to fight climate change is to tax carbon at a global scale, and that is nearly imposible considering the current world politics
You are absolutely right, a current example of that is the Yellow Vest Movement in France:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_movement
When I first heard about it, I thought it was a movement which is not caring about the environment. That 1 million French are vocally opposed to the environment. It's more complex than that but taxing carbon would lead to protests of the masses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_movement
When I first heard about it, I thought it was a movement which is not caring about the environment. That 1 million French are vocally opposed to the environment. It's more complex than that but taxing carbon would lead to protests of the masses.
One way I've heard is to have an import duty on carbon at the border. You have your internal tax on carbon at the source, nationally. If another country has a similar tax, their goods can be imported without extra duties. If they don't, you assess the goods imported and charge the equivalent duty. If the carbon tax rate is different you can pro-rate.
That way, local producers aren't competing against cheap, dirty, manufacturing overseas, and other countries are encouraged to assess their own carbon tax to avoid the import duties.
It's a very fair system that allows countries to onboard one at a time, instead of all together. Unfortunately it would probably be considered illegal under the WTO.
That way, local producers aren't competing against cheap, dirty, manufacturing overseas, and other countries are encouraged to assess their own carbon tax to avoid the import duties.
It's a very fair system that allows countries to onboard one at a time, instead of all together. Unfortunately it would probably be considered illegal under the WTO.
Im sorry if I didin't understand:
"If another country has a similar tax, their goods can be imported without extra duties. If they don't, you assess the goods imported and charge the equivalent duty."
The equivalent duty meaning same as carbon taxers or less? (asuming non carbon taxers have less duty)
"If another country has a similar tax, their goods can be imported without extra duties. If they don't, you assess the goods imported and charge the equivalent duty."
The equivalent duty meaning same as carbon taxers or less? (asuming non carbon taxers have less duty)
And now I have to feel guilty about this too. What a life :/
Have you considered an insanity defense? Just tell yourself the thought of traveling to an exotic location temporarily reduces your mental capability to that of a six year old. If you cannot comprehend the consequence of your action then you're not guilty. Actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea.
If it makes you feel better, Elon Musk flies around in his private jet while tweeting "why not go renewable now?" rather than taking a more nuanced stance.
these type of arguments are really immature and dishonest. So what if a billionaire or a world leader is flying around in Jet. How is that an argument for us to destroy our habitat for future generations. statistically speaking how much of global warming is cause by private jets vs the rest of it? if the 'influencers' are not gonna talk about it then who else is? and will it matter?
if you take a step back & see you'll notice these type of arguments are designed to evoke an emotional response in a casual observer so they dont feel the need/desire to further engage in the (admittedly) marginally interesting topic.
if you take a step back & see you'll notice these type of arguments are designed to evoke an emotional response in a casual observer so they dont feel the need/desire to further engage in the (admittedly) marginally interesting topic.
Sorry, what "argument" did I make?
It's more of an observation about how even people who are vocally pushing for renewables/sustainable energy aren't personally following what they preach (while seemingly not feeling guilty about it).
Is this observation wrong?
It's more of an observation about how even people who are vocally pushing for renewables/sustainable energy aren't personally following what they preach (while seemingly not feeling guilty about it).
Is this observation wrong?
gridlockd(1)
"But actually this summer, we’re going to Greece"
He does all the calculations, is more informed than the average person, and still decides to just go for it.
This is why the battle against global warming is pointless. Human population explosion (triggered by the invention of agriculture) will simply run its course, and we'll just have to live with whatever world we'll be left with in the end.
Yes, he is buying "offsets" for his family, but most of them are clearly a scam, and he also seems to be aware of that.
Trees take years to grow, and capture carbon in the ground, not in the higher atmosphere. Methane would probably be burned anyway, nice for the operators that the can make some extra bucks selling the "offsets".
As for travel: buy a big TV. There are movies from beautiful places all over the world. Then go swimming in a lake nearby. No need to travel thousands of miles for that.
What is so important about visiting Greece? I live in Europe and I have never been to Greece. Nevertheless, I have some ideas about its culture. I've seen photographs, read the Iliad, talked to Greek people, and so on.
He does all the calculations, is more informed than the average person, and still decides to just go for it.
This is why the battle against global warming is pointless. Human population explosion (triggered by the invention of agriculture) will simply run its course, and we'll just have to live with whatever world we'll be left with in the end.
Yes, he is buying "offsets" for his family, but most of them are clearly a scam, and he also seems to be aware of that.
Trees take years to grow, and capture carbon in the ground, not in the higher atmosphere. Methane would probably be burned anyway, nice for the operators that the can make some extra bucks selling the "offsets".
As for travel: buy a big TV. There are movies from beautiful places all over the world. Then go swimming in a lake nearby. No need to travel thousands of miles for that.
What is so important about visiting Greece? I live in Europe and I have never been to Greece. Nevertheless, I have some ideas about its culture. I've seen photographs, read the Iliad, talked to Greek people, and so on.
Oh wow. This could be satire and I wouldn't be able to tell.
What's so important about experiencing anything? Just watch TV.
What's so important about experiencing anything? Just watch TV.
Why exactly do you need to go to Greece?
I didn't say you should just watch TV. Instead of swimming in the Mediterranean sea in Greece, you can go swimming in the nearest lake or ocean. That is what I mean. The food, also you can experience in a local Greek restaurant.
But for seeing the Acropolis, yes, I'll claim that watching it on TV will be sufficient. Let's face it, you'll probably watch it through your camera lens while you are there, anyway, and then watch it on TV at home.
If you want the grand feeling of being on a hill, go hiking in the nearest mountains.
Again: why exactly do you need to go to Greece?
I didn't say you should just watch TV. Instead of swimming in the Mediterranean sea in Greece, you can go swimming in the nearest lake or ocean. That is what I mean. The food, also you can experience in a local Greek restaurant.
But for seeing the Acropolis, yes, I'll claim that watching it on TV will be sufficient. Let's face it, you'll probably watch it through your camera lens while you are there, anyway, and then watch it on TV at home.
If you want the grand feeling of being on a hill, go hiking in the nearest mountains.
Again: why exactly do you need to go to Greece?
It's hyperbole, but its partly true. I live in greece and see those tourists. We live in a tourist bubble, fueled by social media, airbnb and pretty instagram pictures. Tourists are overreporting the value of their experience, as in most cases i know they are getting a prepackaged experience, which is same for everyone, in a beautiful environment but really not always meaningful. Local cultures are diluted everywhere, and when they are preserved in touristy places it's artificial. Tourism nowadays is largely escapism, not much different from VR or gaming. I wish people started actually moving to other places instead of just visiting. A mass emigration to more temperate climates would also reduce heating costs massively.
Could it be that, because you're living there, you're used to the sight? And, conversely, people traveling halfway across Europe to visit Greece are just bored of their own neighbourhood? (sure, most likely many people are missing places they could go that are much closer but less advertised).
>Local cultures are diluted everywhere, and when they are preserved in touristy places it's artificial.
There are plenty of things to do when traveling that don't involve bothering local people. I don't see how just looking at the nature, for example, is any less "meaningful".
>Tourism nowadays is largely escapism
Protip: all entertainment is escapism.
>Local cultures are diluted everywhere, and when they are preserved in touristy places it's artificial.
There are plenty of things to do when traveling that don't involve bothering local people. I don't see how just looking at the nature, for example, is any less "meaningful".
>Tourism nowadays is largely escapism
Protip: all entertainment is escapism.
"all entertainment is escapism"
Yes - but not all entertainment produces the same amount of carbon dioxide. That's the point.
If you say you need to travel to Greece for entertainment, it seems even less justifiable.
At most you could say it is educational and opens your mind about different cultures and so on. But even for that, I'd say the costs are not warranted, and there are many other ways to learn.
Yes - but not all entertainment produces the same amount of carbon dioxide. That's the point.
If you say you need to travel to Greece for entertainment, it seems even less justifiable.
At most you could say it is educational and opens your mind about different cultures and so on. But even for that, I'd say the costs are not warranted, and there are many other ways to learn.
- There is definitely something about changing environment/traveling that is rewarding. (When mice are put into a unfamiliar environment, their hippocampus is more active and they become more active). But perhaps this need can be satisfied with much shorter distances rather than mass intercontinental flights.
- There is definitely some value to traveling, but it is greatly inflated by social pressure, the media, and the fact that most tourist destinations are cheap to westerners.
- Yeah, but some escapism is more eco-friendly than others
- There is definitely some value to traveling, but it is greatly inflated by social pressure, the media, and the fact that most tourist destinations are cheap to westerners.
- Yeah, but some escapism is more eco-friendly than others
[deleted]
You think a TV is carbon neutral? Have you considered going into a medically induced coma and just staying there, even less environmental damage.
I think a TV uses WAY less carbon than flying to Greece, yes. I didn't say you have to be carbon neutral (although make no mistakes, many people do think that). But there is a difference between going carbon neutral and not wasting several tons of carbon on replaceable activities.
The NYT is making money from selling despair. They ought to be ashamed.
I feel like some of the biggest offenders are scientists attending conferences. Is there an estimate of the research budget % spent on travel expenses?
Why pick on scientists? Engineering and all industries and hobbies have conferences all around the planet. Convention centers of major cities are probably booked all year long.
Not sure how much that contributes though.
Not sure how much that contributes though.
Because it's the one that is easier to control. and perhaps if scientists make the first step , corporates will follow
Unless you think that 3 out of every 5 days of a climate scientist's job is flying around the world, attending conferences, their travel budget is much lower then what is spent on putting food on their tables, and roofs over their heads.
Yeah its just not practical to take their food. Plus i m not talking only about climate scientists
"Each additional metric ton of carbon dioxide or its equivalent — your share of the emissions on a cross-country flight one-way from New York to Los Angeles — shrinks the summer sea ice cover by 3 square meters, or 32 square feet, the authors, Dirk Notz and Julienne Stroeve, found."
Those picture-like analogies may be very effective, but I immediately call bullshit. I want to know a percentage. Let's say 100% of air travel was removed, how much CO2 is that in savings, percentage-wise?
It's two percent[1]. If you just told people it was two percent, they would immediately proceed to not give a damn. Only the most dogmatic of people would be giving up a major freedom in their life just to save a theoretical two percent on CO2.
[1] https://www.atag.org/facts-figures.html
Those picture-like analogies may be very effective, but I immediately call bullshit. I want to know a percentage. Let's say 100% of air travel was removed, how much CO2 is that in savings, percentage-wise?
It's two percent[1]. If you just told people it was two percent, they would immediately proceed to not give a damn. Only the most dogmatic of people would be giving up a major freedom in their life just to save a theoretical two percent on CO2.
[1] https://www.atag.org/facts-figures.html
That figure is misleading.
In the uk the domnestic aviation accounts for 22% of the transportation sector.
Airtravel is a luxtury and unfortunately in a crises that should be the first to go.
At least domnestic flights should be banned immediately.
Will it solve our Problem? No. Will it help solve our Problem? Yes, because it is one of the things we can get easily ride of.
Nobody says you can't travel anymore, just take the train.
Will it solve our Problem? No. Will it help solve our Problem? Yes, because it is one of the things we can get easily ride of.
Nobody says you can't travel anymore, just take the train.
Your 22% figure is misleading. It makes it sound significant, but it's not. In reality, anything that people in the UK can do regarding domestic CO2 is insignificant to world CO2 emissions. They could be 100% carbon neutral and it wouldn't make a dent.
Instead of giving up on liberties and wasting money on tiny gains on CO2 savings, the UK should be using it towards developing technologies for the rest of the world to thrive on - without emitting so much CO2.
That's not what people want to hear though. They want to feel significant. They want to feel good about themselves because they're eating vegan or riding a bike to work, even though that contribution is utterly negligible.
Instead of giving up on liberties and wasting money on tiny gains on CO2 savings, the UK should be using it towards developing technologies for the rest of the world to thrive on - without emitting so much CO2.
That's not what people want to hear though. They want to feel significant. They want to feel good about themselves because they're eating vegan or riding a bike to work, even though that contribution is utterly negligible.
Heating your home "ruins" the world. You probably wont die at 40*F inside your home, but it sure would suck living that type winter. So does cooling it during the summer, so do many other modern amenities, etc...
At some point it begs the question: Is the world you are preserving worth living?
Sure, there are billions of people that don't have any of these amenities in life, but it is mostly by necessity and they can't afford any better...
So, is travel necessary? No. Is traveling something you should feel guilty about, probably not.
At some point it begs the question: Is the world you are preserving worth living?
Sure, there are billions of people that don't have any of these amenities in life, but it is mostly by necessity and they can't afford any better...
So, is travel necessary? No. Is traveling something you should feel guilty about, probably not.
> Is the world you are preserving worth living?
Future generations would like to exist.
Perhaps in people year 5000 will put 2019 in the same bucket with the dark ages.
Future generations would like to exist.
Perhaps in people year 5000 will put 2019 in the same bucket with the dark ages.
The last human being will eat the last cockroach.
Pollution and climate change are not an existential crisis for humanity. We're just not that powerful (yet). Humans have survived, and thrived, in far worse conditions than we are experiencing today, or that climate change is likely to cause, and it was done without the benefits of modern technology. (Really, conditions are better now because of modern technology.)
Pollution and climate change are not an existential crisis for humanity. We're just not that powerful (yet). Humans have survived, and thrived, in far worse conditions than we are experiencing today, or that climate change is likely to cause, and it was done without the benefits of modern technology. (Really, conditions are better now because of modern technology.)
If travel is valuable to you, pay for it.