
How Guilty Should You Feel About Flying? - tysone
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/17/climate/flying-shame-emissions.html
======
esotericn
It doesn't make sense to frame the issue as a matter of guilt, and neither is
it relevant to look at the relative emissions of others.

The simple matter is that we have a carbon budget per person on Earth. If
you're above that, you should voluntarily reduce yourself below it.

If you (we) don't, more aggressive mechanisms will eventually force us all to.

Fly as much as you want, but you must capture or offset the emissions.

This applies equally to all direct or indirect usage of fossil fuels. Driving,
heating, goods, whatever.

It's basic mathematics at this point. Guilt and shame are one potential social
mechanism for getting people to realise what they must do. Taxation is
another. People dying out is another. Etc. I suppose in that lens it's
probably the lesser of the evils.

But it's very much indirect, the shame is a sort of evolved potential solution
rather than anything "real".

~~~
sorenjan
Emission offset is just a way for rich people to absolve their sins. If you
release CO2 in the atmosphere that was previously sequestered in the ground
it's out. Sure you can plant some trees, and they'll bind the carbon as they
grow, but what happens when they get old and die? Bacteria and fungi release
the carbon back into the air.

~~~
adriand
That doesn’t sound like a well-informed opinion to me. Have you looked at
rigorously certified carbon offset and capture programs? It is not just
treeplanting.

~~~
sorenjan
I would be very interested in any programs that actually capture and sequester
CO2 long term. Do you have any good links?

~~~
adriand
Here's a list of featured projects associated with the nonprofit I buy offsets
from: [https://www.less.ca/en-ca/projects.cfm](https://www.less.ca/en-
ca/projects.cfm)

~~~
sorenjan
I don't see anything about removing CO2 from the atmosphere, only spending
money to prevent CO2 and methane being emitted elsewhere. While those projects
are obviously good, they don't negate any fossil CO2 anyone else emits.

------
mattlutze
*Industry groups oppose such measures. “U.S. airlines are committed to reducing carbon emissions even further,” said Carter Yang, a spokesman for the airline industry group, Airlines for America. “That effort would be harmed, not helped, by proposals that would siphon away into government coffers the very funds needed to continue investing in new, more fuel-efficient aircraft, sustainable alternative aviation fuels,” and other innovations, he said.

The "lining government coffers" approach is tired and obvious.

Fuel efficiency standards for automobiles demonstrably reduce car emissions.
Fuel efficiency standards for airplanes can drive down emissions as well.

The air travel industry is predicated on taking loans against society's future
environmental health for profits today. If they poured their research into
looking at truly low or zero emission options they could easily argue for
exemptions to emissions-based taxing and clean up the competition at the same
time.

It should be a race to be green, not a race to protect the green they're
making on existing business models.

\- [https://www.universetoday.com/143720/nasa-has-a-new-all-
elec...](https://www.universetoday.com/143720/nasa-has-a-new-all-electric-
airplane/) \- [https://www.dw.com/en/ampaire-test-flies-worlds-biggest-
elec...](https://www.dw.com/en/ampaire-test-flies-worlds-biggest-electric-
plane/a-49098126) \- [https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/16/18625088/lilium-jet-
test-...](https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/16/18625088/lilium-jet-test-flight-
electric-aircraft-flying-car)

------
samvher
I don't think this "you don't need to feel guilty if you're not a frequent
flyer" narrative is useful at all.

A flight uses between 2 and 6 liters of kerosine per 100 km for every
passenger [1]. You travel around 800-900 km per hour on a passenger plane,
which means your rate of fuel use is fairly high (let's say 30 liters per
hour). Putting it in these numbers allows you to compare it to filling up your
car and puts some things in perspective.

Taking a flight now and then is not going to end the world. But it does
provide an easy opportunity to reduce emissions.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft)

~~~
Retric
The frequency argument seems reasonable as driving yourself to the same
location is generally worse for the environment. What makes flying bad is the
rate you can travel. You can fly 2 million miles far easier than driving an IC
car that distance.

Of course this assumes commercial aviation, private jets are much worse for
the environment.

~~~
samvher
_driving yourself to the same location is generally worse for the environment_

Curious what this is based on, taking road construction, car ownership, etc
into the calculation? Because as for fuel consumption clearly it depends - if
you're a family, taking 1 car is generally going to be more fuel efficient.

~~~
Retric
I was just assuming a single passenger thus ‘yourself’ and normal distance vs
fuel. For a couple it’s likely still true as the break even point for fuel
would be around 40+MPG. That’s assuming you’re not increasing congestion and
thus lowering others fuel economy and flying does not make this trip much
shorter or longer.

A family is as you suggest likely better off driving unless they are renting
an RV. But, IMO avoiding a 10-20+ hour road trip with a car full of kids is an
excusable reason to be less fuel efficient.

PS: At scale things tip further to flying as roads have a separate set of
issues.

------
SapporoChris
Not guilty at all. I travel internationally. There really isn't a better
option for traveling over the pacific. Yes, I recognize I could stay in one
place, I don't consider that a viable option.

I think it's a boondoggle to attempt to shame people into changing their
behavior when they do not have viable options.

~~~
mattlutze
"I think it's a boondoggle to attempt to shame people into changing their
behavior when they do not have viable options."

It's perhaps a boondoggle to represent a person's life as having only a single
option that requires such things.

If you want to have the sort of life that requires your flights back and
forth, that's one thing -- but voluntary participation in that life is a
different thing than suggesting that you're trapped by circumstance.

~~~
SapporoChris
Anyone shaming air travel should first become carbon neutral least they be
labeled a hypocrite.

~~~
viklove
Even if someone's lifestyle is emitting 1/10th the carbon of yours, they
should still reduce it to 0 before criticizing you? Sounds like you're just
trying to avoid feeling guilty and absolve yourself of any blame.

~~~
SapporoChris
Certainly not. Being a hypocrite doesn't prevent ability to criticize. But it
does weaken the argument depending on the level of hypocrisy.

I'm not avoiding feeling guilty and I know I'm not innocent. I'm trying to
listen with an open mind and exchange opinions in a polite manner. (like
everyone else here I hope)

------
rlpb
> “Our climate just can’t tolerate widespread frequent flying,” said Dan
> Rutherford, who directs the council’s aviation program.

It would if we could control our breeding. How guilty should you feel about
having large numbers of children?

~~~
beatgammit
It doesn't matter how many people exist if each is a net zero in terms of
emissions. What would be better, having more children that each have a net
negative impact on the planet, or having fewer?

Personally, I think the whole "reduce the number of humans" solution is
terrible and completely misses the mark. We don't need to reduce the number of
humans, we need to increase the efficiency of each human in terms of impact on
the environment. We need more innovators, not fewer, and innovators need
capital, so we should be encouraging more reproduction by those with means
rather than less.

Personally, I think the most practical solution is to tax pollution. Wealthy
nations seem to produce far more pollution per captia than developing
nation's, and developing nations adopt our bad habits. Taxing pollution
increases the cost of these bad habits and encourages green innovation. We saw
a move toward smaller cars in 2008 when driving became more expensive relative
to income, and the same thing can happen to other aspects of our lives if
living green becomes less expensive than polluting. And that culture of living
green (and the cost reductions associated with innovation) will propagate to
developing countries, which will decrease the average political per capita.

I don't think reducing the total population significantly is workable, and
attempts are only going to remove the people who have the largest chance of
solving the problem generally.

------
goodcanadian
Ideally, we should reduce flying, but in the short term, it is not something I
get overly concerned about if there is not a reasonable alternative (taking
the train for example). Yes, you could always choose not to make the trip, but
that comes with varying levels of pain points (maybe you miss out on visiting
family, for example).

The reason I take this position is because there is so much low hanging fruit
that doesn't require significant lifestyle changes that we should be doing
those things first and NOW before we get too worked up about lifestyle
changes. I drive an electric car; for most purposes it is an exact replacement
for a petrol/gasoline car. In many ways it is better (cheaper fuel, cheaper
maintenance, quieter, better for air quality). In some ways, it is worse
(lower range between fueling, though I find that is rarely a practical issue).
My point is that, financial considerations aside, most people could easily
replace their car with an electric one without seriously impacting the way
they live their lives. There are many things like this which would have a huge
impact without forcing people to change their habits too suddenly. Once these
changes are well underway, we can look at whether and what major lifestyle
changes are still needed.

------
mscasts
I am a swede and I am totally confused on why people in my country seems to
totally have lost their minds. People only feel guilty about some things.

These are the same people that buy products from "hip" companies like Apple
which are famous for making products harder to repair and practically forces
people to buy completely new devices even if something is wrong on the current
one and that it easily could be repaired. Yet I have never heard about any
shame owning an Apple product, most likely it's the reversed.

My point is that people are irrational and only acts on stuff that either
feel, sound or looks good. Like always when a headline starts with a question,
the answer is probably going to be a resounding "no".

It isn't the act of flying that makes it bad. For example, a swedish company
fly with partly renewable fuel ([https://www.flygbra.se/hallbarhet/boka-miljo-
class/faq/](https://www.flygbra.se/hallbarhet/boka-miljo-class/faq/)) and I
believe any issue can be solved with technology advancement.

We shouldn't limit ourselves because of climate change. We should instead
improve the technology and make it better so it doesn't impact the climate in
such a way it becomes unsustainable.

This is the core issue I have with the crazy people in my country. They
complain but offer zero alternatives except "not doing that". Just compare
Greta Thunberg (which is a person with zero suggestions) to Boyan Slat that
actually tried to develop technology to clean up the oceans.

Greta is way more famous and have way more attention even if Boyan is far, far
more admirable and actually tries to provide solutions for the future.

~~~
rimliu
Apple is not the best example. First, their products are useable and updated
for a long, long time. Second, they are very recyclable.

~~~
mscasts
Sure, but it was just an example to illustrate my point. They hanven't been
the good at all in recycling their products until pretty recently.

They still try and keep people from actually repairing their devices which are
perfectly fine in many cases. So I believe it's still a valid point even if
there could be better examples.

And honestly, you write

> updated for a long, long time

Are they really tho? A few years is not a long, long time in my opinion and
even if you don't buy a new one for a couple of years and it's still updated
they usually make it unbearable slow so that you cannot live with it anymore
and purchase a new one. It is easy to update, but nearly impossible to go back
to an older version if the new version turns out to be very slow.

My father still uses a dumphone and a windows phone. They both work
surprisingly well for him, especially the windows phone. I am actually pretty
amazed on the longevity of the Nokia Lumia.

Making a phone last 2-4 years is not a long time. I believe many people could
easily have the same phones for 10+ years if the phone makers were interested
of making that happen. They aren't though and that is a bit of an issue.

Just compare a phone to most other products and you will soon notice people
update their smart phone a lot more often than most other things. Sure it's an
important device but not that many people would actually need the feature
upgrade every version have.

Make a phone that lasts 20 years or more and I will start to believe that you
are making good, long lasting products.

~~~
nizmow
The issue is almost entirely software security. There's no way I could
recommend someone use a Windows Phone today, and if they did, I'd strongly
recommend they avoid doing things like internet banking and even logging into
their email.

------
digitalsushi
How guilty do I feel? It depends on the day you ask me.

If you ask me when I am feeling like a pessimist, then I don't feel great
about it. My attitude is that we're 7 billion all living under one bedsheet
and guilting the people who pass gas. Eventually we will all suffocate. Living
as though humanity needs palliative care is disturbing. It might be the most
realistic, but I can't process it every day.

If you ask me when I am feeling like an optimist, then morbidly, I feel that
we have embraced driving over a cliff, but that while we are airborne, we
might design wings, test them, and learn to fly before plummeting to our
deaths.

If you ask me when I am feeling like a cynic, then someone is going to
bioengineer a population reducer, and 1% of us will inherit the earth before
2100. That would also solve the problem, but I won't get to be around to enjoy
it.

Here's the rub, none of these require me to do anything differently. Now tell
me how I can add a fourth option that I can genuinely believe has some
reasonable metric for improving our chances. I'm having such a hard time
finding it, and I think that people like me, left to compound their depressed
thoughts, invariably turn into the enemy on this global effort. Anyone,
please?

~~~
bryanlarsen
> 1% of us will inherit the earth before 2100. That would also solve the
> problem, but I won't get to be around to enjoy it.

Not necessarily. If the 1% fly around in private jets regularly we'll be worse
off.

> fourth option

The only solution is political and global. A carbon tax & tariff is the best
option I'm aware of, but there are others.

[https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-
riding/](https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-riding/)

------
bloogsy
We should feel guilty. Especially for any flights that are frivolous. We
should also feel guilty for our excessive meat consumption, our excessive
usage of cars, and for all forms of waste. And we should continue to feel
guilty until we resolve the problem.

China has a population of 1.4bn people[1] and produces 10.87tn tonnes of CO2
per year[2], whereas the US has roughly 25% of the population[3] but produces
5.107tn tonnes of CO2[2]. We in the developed western world need to take
drastic steps to reduce our impact, and then encourage other nations to do the
same.

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China)
[2][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions)
[3][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States)

------
codingdave
So the better question is whether business meetings truly need to be in-
person. With all the interest in remote work, and how common it is getting,
perhaps the lessons we've learned about remote communications and
collaboration should be shared more broadly, to help that 12% of travelers who
are the frequent flyers stay home more often.

Travelling to see family or explore the world makes sense. As does large,
intense meeting where the face-to-face benefits are needed. But travelling for
small short meetings because you don't know how to use modern communication
options does not.

On a side note, the discussions around reducing our carbon footprint have a
disturbing trend of implying that we should only focus on our biggest
problems, or the people who are the biggest problem. They tend to justify the
attitude that, "That guy is worse than me, so I'm OK."

------
FeepingCreature
Like $20/flight guilty, which you then promptly offset at Atmosfair or a
similar service.

[https://www.atmosfair.de/en/](https://www.atmosfair.de/en/)

~~~
morsch
$20 is roughly Los Angeles - Las Vegas.

LA - NYC: ~65 USD

LA - Beijing: ~170 USD

LA - Frankfurt: ~155 USD

Add 20% for business class.

~~~
FeepingCreature
Huh. Intercontinental flights are pretty carbon expensive... still doesn't add
_that_ much on the price though, not even twice as much even if you go for the
cheapest flight conceivable.

I wish I could add carbon expenditure to flight price searches.

------
jhrmnn
With current world population and technologies, the sustainable level of CO₂
emissions per person is 3 tons per year. In Germany, with an above-average
environmentally conscious way of life, I'm doing around 5 tons a year. In
December, I'm flying to Vancouver for a conference, which will produce around
2 tons roundtrip (global warming equivalent). So while I don't feel ashamed,
of course I don't feel great about it, shouldn't that be obvious?

------
ulucs
This is such a first world outlook on things. It's easy to guilt people when
you live in Europe or North America and have easy access to everything you can
need. Other people need to go to the other end of the world for education or
their jobs. Why on earth should they be penalised with month-long voyages
across the Atlantic?

------
Nasrudith
Flying is a stupid symbolic focus as a "luxury" if you are talking about
airlines instead of your own private jet. It has better passenger mileage than
cars but worse than a fully loaded bus.

Yeah you should look at better alternatives for viability but otherwise can we
give this dumb meme a rest and focus on real solutions?

~~~
ryanmercer
>Flying is a stupid symbolic focus as a "luxury" if you are talking about
airlines instead of your own private jet. It has better passenger mileage than
cars but worse than a fully loaded bus.

Except you generally aren't taking a car or bus across the country, or to
another continent, multiple times a year because you want to check out this
zoo or that beach or go attend your friends exotic destination wedding because
they found cheap flights during such and such month or because you want to go
to Antarctica to see the penguins. Go install a dating app, fire it up and
start swiping women 20-35ish, you'll see photo after photo after photo of
women with elephants or tigers or at this landmark and that landmark. This
sort of travel simply would not exist without airplanes at a ton~ of CO2 per
person per round trip.

So comparing planes to buses or private vehicles doesn't really equate. Cheap
air travel has opened up far more travel opportunities for pleasure than have
ever existed before and air travel is growing year after year. I also suspect
that any given passenger's fuel usage might not be as efficient as it seems
given most flights are NOT one stop to the destination and routinely involve 1
or more connecting flights which sometimes require you to actually travel past
your destination only to have to backtrack on another aircraft.

And for the insane amount of business flights, nearly all of that could be
handled via a telephone call or video chat. Take YC they make 'finalist'
founders fly out to the bay area to interview in person at a ton or three of
CO2 per person round trip when they could just fire up a Skype at a few
hundred grams of CO2 per gigabyte.

------
jokoon
If americans could reduce their emissions, that would be a great start. The US
emits a lot per capita compared to other countries.

I'm worried that in the future, eco-terrorism might actually become a thing...

------
chewz
Guilty about flying, guilty about eating meat, guilty about having children.
Are we trying to embrace some quasi-religion or are we deciding on actions for
keeping the planet sustainable?

------
SuoDuanDao
I wonder how difficult it would be to build an airplane that runs off ethanol
- until we get electric airplanes it might be a decent stopgap measure for the
conscientious oligarch.

~~~
mattlutze
You might enjoy this discussion on the Aviation Stack Exchange site on that
very topic:

[https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/26883/could-
mos...](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/26883/could-most-
commercial-jet-engines-today-run-on-ethanol-without-any-problems/26887)

Tl,dr: ethanol has about 60% the energy density of jet fuel (so you need more
fuel / weight for same flight), the extra weight may mean you actually have a
negative available cargo weight (for passengers and their stuff) depending on
the airframe, and it's a solvent that might melt the systems it's in,
requiring an up-to complete retrofit of the drive and fuel systems for the
airplane.

But maybe depending on the application, if you built an airplane from scratch
to use it, there could be ways? It may be a very expensive airplane though,
which could make it harder to run one to profit eventually.

~~~
SuoDuanDao
I was envisioning a net-zero emissions private plane, a pure luxury item for
frequent fliers where profit wouldn't be an issue - Depending on a celebrity's
public position on climate change, that kind of signalling could be
worthwhile.

------
solatic
Not guilty at all.

I live east of the Atlantic. My parents live west of the Atlantic. What am I
supposed to do, never see my family again west of the Atlantic? Say goodbye to
the life I've built east of the Atlantic and move back west again?

There are absolutely no alternatives. If it's such a big problem then force
airlines to buy carbon offsets for every passenger and pass on the costs in
the form of increased ticket prices. Get governments to pump more money into
researching greener aeronautical alternatives. But don't try to guilt people
into making morally impossible choices and pretend like you're sitting on some
ethical high horse while you're doing it.

~~~
xref
>There are absolutely no alternatives

Our greatest scientists will surely invent another means to travel over water.

Also _literally_ the second paragraph of the article covers your use case:
“should most Americans really be ashamed of getting on a plane to see grandma
this holiday season? Probably not.“

------
me_me_me
> Each of these travelers, on average, emits more than 3 tons of carbon
> dioxide per year, a substantial amount,

Conservative estimate puts every person at around 300-500kg CO2 emission by
breathing. Just to put things into perspective.

Ships produce way more emissions then flying.

I really wish they stop producing those misleading articles muddling the water
and focus on real polluters.

------
1337biz
After all the sharing economy talk we should introduce the guilt economy. I
fear this becoming a growing trend.

~~~
scottlocklin
The sharing economy. The hair shirt "environmental indulgences" economy. It's
almost like someone wants the peasants to stay on their plantation and be
happy with their cricket gruel.

