I wish we could decarbonize long distance travel. I would love to see more of the world but I can't justify contributing to climate change for such a trivial thing. I can limit emissions by doing smaller trips with bike, bus or train locally, but oceans present a problem.
A round trip transatlantic flight from New York to Berlin emits 2.4 metric tons of CO2e per person.
The UN says global emissions per capita needs to drop to 1.5 metric tons/year by 2050 if we have any hope of keeping to a 2C temperature rise this century.
I wonder if there's any hope of electric planes hitting the energy density needed for commercial airlines, or algae based plane fuel taking off. I would even use a slower or more expensive mean of travel if it meant the emissions were drastically reduced.
This sort of hyper-sensitivity to any negative effects of your actions is absolutely paralyzing, as you clearly demonstrate.
It will keep you from enjoying anything. People believe they shouldn't have kids because "there's too many people". Or spend the $10 on a reusable bottle of water they are going to lose instead of buying the $1 and giving $9 to your cause of choice (charity, church, weed for the homeless).
The only way to really go zero-emissions, which would really benefit everyone (I guess, by this logic) is to just off yourself.
But I'd argue that you could do more good, have more potential to solve these problems you are concerned about, by exposing yourself to things outside your comfort zone. Other places, people, cultures, great works of art and engineering, and rich experiences.
All of the planes you ride on are going to fly anyway, get out there and get it!
Ethical consumption is a lie, and individual environmentalism is a ploy to redirect the conversation away from the incredible waste/pollution of industry and commerce.
Consider Nestle taking tens of millions of gallons of water from drought-struck California for $524 a year, even as residents are urged to cut back their water consumption.
Hmmm, so if consumers stopped buying or using a certain product/service that produces a lot of pollution, then industry/commerce would still keep right on ahead polluting the exact same amount. Interesting thought.
Consider consumers buying millions of gallons of water from Nestle when they could just drink tap water...
I think what you mean to say is not enough people care about ethical consumption to reduce pollution to the level you think we need to be at. We should instead regulate industry so that it doesn't depend on individuals making ethical decisions with their consumption, because most of them won't. Perfectly reasonable position, but you don't have to say it like there's some vast evil conspiracy out there.
There is a balance to be found in lifestylism. I wouldn't call it hyper-sensitivity. You can't be perfect, and your lifestyle isn't going to disrupt global systems that facilitate most of the worlds problems, but there is something to be said for reducing your negative impact on the world.
It feels gross to have a smart phone or computer built with conflict minerals (they all essentially are). It feels gross to have more than affordable clothes assembled in sweatshops. I'm not the one setting up these systems but it feels gross to benefit from them. Don't tell people to ignore those feelings, ignoring them is alienating.
Also, I think if you off yourself the carbon in your body will eventually be emitted? :P
> All of the planes you ride on are going to fly anyway, get out there and get it!
This is just plain bad reasoning, for obvious reasons.
It is not “hypersensitive” to care about the CO2 impact of air travel. In fact it is a large blind spot for many otherwise progressive-minded people. These travel shows genuinely espouse progressive principles of learning from other cultures and yet almost never is there any mention of the significant CO2 impact. All the little things you might do throughout the year to lower your impact and get to where we need to be in 12 years are easily wiped out by just one plane trip. It’s good to talk about it.
> Taking the bus instead of the car to work will "pay for" like 4 cross-continental trips a year.
Only if you want to maintain the same levels of unsustainable CO2 output. That's totally unacceptable. We need to get to as close to zero emissions as we can as fast as we can, which means taking mass transit to work, living closer to work, and not flying so much.
> Driving the same trip is 2500 pounds - more than 4x.
Not if you do it in an electric, sustainably powered car (or better yet train).
Where do these numbers come from? Google gives me the car being roughly equivalent with a single passenger. If these numbers are referring to a family of 4+ in one vehicle then it passes muster, but that's a big caveat.
Like other people have said, there is a balance to be found. There's certainly a middle ground to be found instead of "I don't like the Prius so I'm going to buy an F150." Assuming no significant externalities, the more sustainable choice is also the more inexpensive choice so that's a benefit. Choosing air travel also isn't all-or-nothing, for example traveling to Cartagena from the continental USA is much less miles and carbon emissions than Phuket. Last, air lines will adjust the frequency of their routes long term so voting with your wallet matters.
> People believe they shouldn't have kids because "there's too many people".
This is true though. There are too many people on the planet, and you shouldn't have kids if it aligns with you beliefs.
Luckily, countries are already headed in that direction (fertility rates below replacement rate) [1]. But we should do more with carbon tax funds to further incentivize this outcome.
Not wanting to be overtly political, but this was in today's news. If those beliefs lead to trends, fertility rates might not lead to one's desired outcome if others don't believe:
"According to the General Social Survey data, 41 percent of Democrats are without a steady partner, compared with only 29 percent of Republicans. Black Americans are more likely than white Americans to not have a steady partner: 51 percent vs. 32 percent, respectively."
"In racial or ethnic terms, America’s “Baby Bust” is kinda, sorta, a little bit racist: it’s hammered Native Americans and Hispanics particularly hard, and hit even African Americans harder than whites generally, and certainly harder than non-Hispanic whites." [1]
Are Republicans going to have more kids than Democrats? I have no idea, Paul Ryan has had three and says he's "doing his part" [2]. The trend downward in fertility rate across the board is still obvious.
Excuse me? Everything I've ever read shows that Hispanics are having more kids than any other demographic. They might decrease that after immigrating to the US and becoming more assimilated, but even so they still lead the pack, and non-Hispanic caucasians are projected to become a minority in 2-3 decades IIRC.
"Results from the 2010 Census showed that racial and ethnic minorities accounted for 91.7% of the nation’s growth since 2000. Most of that increase from 2000 to 2010—56%—was due to Hispanics."
"The changing profile of the nation’s youngest residents also stems from the fact that some groups, especially Hispanics, have higher numbers of children than do non-Hispanic whites."
"Among Hispanics, the total fertility rate is 2.4. For non-Hispanic whites and for non-Hispanic Asians, it is 1.8."
"In 2014, blacks and Asians gave birth to almost 17 percent more children than the national average, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Hispanics gave birth to 32 percent more than the national average."
So, in summary, why are you posting obvious falsehoods? There's plenty of data showing that your assertions are plainly wrong. This was all from a very quick Google search, one of them being the government's own census site. There's tons more.
I absolutely agree with you, which is why I would never alter my life creation activities for environmental concerns. If humans wanted to fix our energy issues we could make a serious push (perhaps 5% GDP) towards nuclear technologies.
I'm not suggesting we remove agency (yours or otherwise), but there are people out there that will accept cash to not have children. Efforts like that should be pursued as long as its entirely voluntary, as not having a child is one of the most impactful actions someone can perform to reduce damage to the planet (we're pushing limits at 7.53 billion people already). Economics is a powerful incentive.
Regarding nuclear, I'm not going to beat a dead horse in this thread.
Long-term, I'd like to see anti-aging therapies really work out so that human lifespans are greatly extended, along with contraception and fertility technologies perfected so that people only have kids when they're really, really ready for them (probably after age 50).
As for nuclear, I'll beat the dead horse: we don't need it (at least fission). We need more renewable power, especially solar, since 1500W/m^3 hits the Earth's surface all day long. We just need to figure out how to make solar panels in a more environmentally-friendly manner (better recycling of their materials, etc.), and deploy them in more places, especially in places where they don't have negative effects, such as on rooftops, over highways, etc.
Then, we need to figure out how to have humans live in a more environmental manner, by increasing density. If most of the population lived at the density of Manhattan or Tokyo, we wouldn't have all these complaints about humans taking up too much land area.
The problems associated with overpopulation can be solved with technology and policy, if we really want to.
If no, then I applaud your sacrifice; preach it, brother. Spreading awareness and sensitiivty is critical.
If yes, then we get into the nasty business of setting goals and priorities. Or, rather, the nasty business of having our priorities set for us. Or can you see an achievable path that doesn't lead to a green coat of paint on the status quo?
> The only way to really go zero-emissions, which would really benefit everyone (I guess, by this logic) is to just off yourself.
Your decomposing body will release nitrates, methane and all sorts of other toxic crap into the air and groundwater. Not to mention the resources consumed in building a casket and your permanent occupation of landspace even after death. Graveyards are all-around terrible for the environment.
Cremation is a little better but emits a ton of greenhouse gas. Burning formaldehyde and mercury is bad news, not to mention the environmental destruction involved in extracting the natural gas needed to do it.
Even going into space and launching yourself into the sun has a tremendous environmental cost.
Everything we do produces emissions. The closest one can come to a zero-emission death might be a sky burial.
That's not a great rebuttal, as you will always die regardless, so all of the things you just mentioned would happen even if you didn't kill yourself.
Killing yourself is absolutely the best way to help the world if your biggest concern in life is global warming and the only way you know how to help is by limiting your own consumption / CO2 production.
Of course, you shouldn't kill yourself, because there are many other, much better ways to help the environment than limiting personal consumption.
Arguably the best way would be to help push for more nuclear power.
As an alternative, you could offset your carbon emissions. If this site can be trusted, $1 = 1 tree = 21.7kg CO2 sequestered per year: https://onetreeplanted.org/
So for $111, you can fly once a year without a net carbon impact. That's so small relative to the cost of the flight you could do it every time you fly.
The tree needs to grow to maturity to sequester the CO2 and when it dies be replaced by others. If you have ever gardened you will be aware that planting of x seedlings results in less-than-x mature plants.
At least one of the comments is saying you worry too much, but I appreciate your worry and wish other people would worry more, not less.
And one of the comments suggested that you can offset your carbon impact by paying someone to plant trees. I'm not seriously considering that for the next time my wife and I fly anywhere... And possibly just to offset our yearly carbon footprint anyhow.
It's completely within our technology to generate jet fuel in a carbon negative way (bringing it back to neutral after burning). Actually there are multiple methods to do it. They all cost more, especially because they're in small-batch proof of concept mode. Scaled up they would likely cost just a little bit more than our current fuel costs; but I view this as a completely valid way of folding in externality costs back into alignment with the direct economic activity of air travel.
Social investment (via government or other channels) into accelerating developments like this is why people need to get political to shift how the default decisions get made.
Sailing is great if you don't mind (extremely) slow travel. I bought an 8m from 1972 for about 2 months' worth of rent and have since moved with it from the UK to (nearly) Spain.
I did it for different reasons than you, but it sounds like it might be a nice fit. Although now that I've said that, there are admittedly another set of environmental problems from the anti-foul paint, so perhaps it's just trading one issue for another.
I would say, see the world while you still can. Your individual carbon impact either way makes zero difference, and aviation is responsible for 2% of human carbon dioxide emissions. We're either going to solve this problem on a grander scale than everybody riding bikes, or the world you currently have a chance to see is not going to be around much longer in its present form.
The main reason I would disagree with such a personally limiting view of the world is that the world is so complex and ever-shifting that this sacrifice (even if you convinced a significant amount of people to join) ultimately cannot be measured in its impact.
There are other things limiting travel is affecting, such as reducing the amount of income to the countries travelled to that otherwise really need it. But I can't really measure that to any significant degree either.
I think it's important to be rational about what will or won't have an impact on the global problem. People want to have a sense of personal agency, but pretending that individual choices like reducing travel, turning the thermostat down and not eating meat will have any impact is actually counterproductive, because they create the false impression that measures short of massive retooling of our economy can make a dent in this problem.
I'm not saying those are bad choices, or that there are not other ethical arguments for them. But let's be clear-eyed about the drastic level of structural change required to stabilize (let alone reduce, let alone get to net-negative) CO2 emissions.
(And anyone who chose to have children is automatically disqualified from talking about individual carbon impacts.)
Agreed that individual action is always drowned out by society and global policy, even if global emissions are caused by summing up billions individual decisions.
Ultimately my problem is it is hypocritical to have concern for climate change while jetting around the world.
Eventually I would like to get into green and cleantech and hopefully contribute to a bigger impact on emissions than a single lifetimes worth of actions ever could.
If you're looking for a good role model, I would point to John Baez, a wonderfully gifted mathematician who has changed course mid-career because he thinks this is the most important problem facing humanity: https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/about/
It's certainly true that any individual's actions and choices are unlikely to make a significant change, but if we are willing to justify not making individual sacrifices based on that then we're already in the wrong frame of mind to make progress towards a solution.
Still, emissions from planes are a tiny percentage of global output. Individuals should not share the burden if it's a handful of companies polluting the Earth.
You can also offset your footprint by buying land and planting trees. With some handkerchief math you'll be able to fly without any worries.
And if all the people flying do that? Is there enough land and will they have sequestered enough CO2 to meet the 12 (now 11.5 year target)? What about if more people embrace their right to travel to expand their minds?
I can. You can. My mate can. That's three of us. But if we all follow Rick Steves's suggestions and all fly to Bali to broaden our minds then there is a bit of a physical limit. Isn't there?
For a first world individual, highest impact is not heating/cooling or skipping on transcontinental flights. Meat production globally has a non trivial emissions output but for a first world individual, diet is maybe 10% of footprint. Without Hot Air book goes through these calculations.
Still, planting 1000 trees and making sure they exist for 40 years makes your footprint invisible.
I would imagine that most people would find it easier to not start travelling than to give up meat: but the most likely outcome is that they will do neither. Because all this will be solved by flying nuclear cars which will be the only transport used by the people that have not emigrated to Mars.
I get this recurring dream of a retrofuturistic world where intercontinental travel serviced by nuclear-powered ocean liners. For nonproliferation reasons, there's only a handful companies operating them, one for each theatre. It takes ~4 days to get across the Atlantic, so some amenities are inspired by cruise ships, but optimized for less crew. It's an intriguing dream, but in our current world the economic and regulatory barriers around nuclear propulsion for civilian use make it impractical. More on this later.
I believe economic forces and regulations will be the primary drivers of changing modes of transport, so if it makes economic sense to keep operating jet fuel aircraft, that will be an option for those who can afford it and don't have misgivings about it. But for planning and resilience, there's value in envisioning how a world with very limited jet fuel air travel would look like, and whether portions of its role ought to be taken over by other modes of travel, or if societies merely need to adjust to its loss.
Our world's globalized economy greatly depends on the movement of goods and sometimes people, but for goods, the pace of water transport is often good enough, coupled with its much lower cost per amount and time. Much of this transport uses some of the lowest grades of fuel you can get from fossil oil. To change this, the price of these fuels would have to soar or the fuel would need to be banned. Let's suppose this extreme case comes and fuel oil is no longer an option. A rapid migration to nuclear propulsion for merchant fleets is both politically untenable and economically improbable. Solar/battery propulsion doesn't have the energy density, which leaves wind-like propulsion as one of the only contenders, with the others being simply higher grades of hydrocarbons like gasoline and compressed gas. One's carbon-free, slow, and presents a significant change in show ships are built, while the other needs changes only to the engines, fuel lines, and fuel tanks, re-uses existing industrial expertise, and maintains the pace of travel -- but isn't carbon-free. Which one do you think companies would chose?
I'm too far away from planes to know, but it's interesting that you can break it down into steps with different requirements & significance. Cruise requires energy density while takeoff requires power density. Additionally, takeoff, being close to the ground, doesn't have that multiplier effect that high-altitude emissions do.
So, what I'm really intrigued by is the thought that you could takeoff with chemical fuel and cruise with electric or fuel cells.
Or, as you mention, there's always syngas. That might be the holy grail that saves us from ourselves.
A round trip transatlantic flight from New York to Berlin emits 2.4 metric tons of CO2e per person.
https://co2.myclimate.org/en/portfolios?calculation_id=16976...
The UN says global emissions per capita needs to drop to 1.5 metric tons/year by 2050 if we have any hope of keeping to a 2C temperature rise this century.
I wonder if there's any hope of electric planes hitting the energy density needed for commercial airlines, or algae based plane fuel taking off. I would even use a slower or more expensive mean of travel if it meant the emissions were drastically reduced.
https://www.treehugger.com/aviation/worlds-first-flight-powe...