
If Seeing the World Helps Ruin It, Should We Stay Home? - hbgb
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/03/travel/traveling-climate-change.html
======
avalys
Rather than endlessly agonize about individual industries, pursuits, and
interests, let’s just tax carbon emissions until they’re reduced to an
acceptable level, and let the market sort the rest out.

If travel is valuable to you, pay for it.

~~~
gnode
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.

~~~
geff82
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 So outdated, loud and they are quite unreliable.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.

~~~
gnode
> 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...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipistrel_Panthera#Specifications)
"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.

~~~
geff82
I did not know about the Pathera, personally I was thinking about that one:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bye_Aerospace_Sun_Flyer_4](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bye_Aerospace_Sun_Flyer_4)

------
geff82
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.

~~~
bubblewrap
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?

~~~
eropple
_> 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.

~~~
gowld
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?

~~~
eropple
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.

~~~
sokoloff
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.

------
ve55
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.

~~~
bubblewrap
We are talking about a comparatively pointless activity with a huge carbon
footprint. There are plenty of other ways to enjoy life.

------
kevin_b_er
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.

------
ctlby
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](https://www.withouthotair.com/c1/page_3.shtml)

~~~
dv_dt
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.

------
joshvm
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.

------
jniedrauer
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.

~~~
jcroll
Wait, walking outside is a sin now

~~~
jniedrauer
It is when 10,000 people want to walk in the same place

~~~
etrautmann
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/)

~~~
jniedrauer
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.

~~~
etrautmann
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.

------
minikites
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.

------
FartyMcFarter
> “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.

------
tbirrell
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.

~~~
pjc50
Bunker fuel is "crackable". It can be made into lighter fuels and the sulphur
removed, it's just expensive to do so.

------
fghtr
No. Here is what we actually should do:
[http://www.kimnicholas.com/uploads/2/5/7/6/25766487/fig1full...](http://www.kimnicholas.com/uploads/2/5/7/6/25766487/fig1full.jpg)

Upd: apart from the carbon tax, of course.

~~~
gnode
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.

------
eeZah7Ux
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.

~~~
fastball
Who is it I'm saving the world for if not myself or my children?

~~~
bubblewrap
He didn't say you shouldn't have kids.

My kids read books, too.

~~~
beat
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".

~~~
bubblewrap
What are poor arguments about overpopulation? Clearly overpopulation is part
of the problem.

~~~
beat
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.

~~~
bubblewrap
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.

~~~
beat
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.

~~~
bubblewrap
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](https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate#births-globally)

Absolute number of births increased 40% since 1950, from 100 Million to 140
Million per year.

~~~
beat
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.

~~~
bubblewrap
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.

------
Dkastro92
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

~~~
fooblitzky
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.

~~~
Dkastro92
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)

------
eafkuor
And now I have to feel guilty about this too. What a life :/

~~~
redthrow
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.

~~~
DesiLurker
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.

~~~
redthrow
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?

------
bubblewrap
"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.

~~~
inertiatic
Oh wow. This could be satire and I wouldn't be able to tell.

What's so important about experiencing anything? Just watch TV.

~~~
buboard
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.

~~~
antisemiotic
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.

~~~
buboard
\- 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

------
tengbretson
The NYT is making money from selling despair. They ought to be ashamed.

------
buboard
I feel like some of the biggest offenders are scientists attending
conferences. Is there an estimate of the research budget % spent on travel
expenses?

~~~
jobigoud
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.

~~~
buboard
Because it's the one that is easier to control. and perhaps if scientists make
the first step , corporates will follow

------
gridlockd
"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](https://www.atag.org/facts-
figures.html)

~~~
bpfrh
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.

~~~
gridlockd
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.

------
ardit33
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.

~~~
eeZah7Ux
> 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.

~~~
beat
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.)

