Come on, about 10% of greenhouse gas emissions come from flying. Amd that’s done almost exclusively by the common folks, not the tiny minority. A kilometre by train causes 99 % less (electric) or about 70 % less (diesel) emissions per kilometre than an airplane does, and is a viable way to travel, but people still fly. Because they prefer being assholes and kil their own children if not doing.so would inconvenience them evem just a little.
Similarly, feeding one person with red mean causes about as much greenhouse gas emissions as feeding 10 vegetarians. No need to go full vegan, but decreasing consumption of meat would make another 10 to 20 %.
And then there are the private cars, something in the ballpark of 5 %.
About a quarter of oyr greenhouse gas emissions are caused.by things that.are completely unnecessary. Yeah, at the moment all of those three would be inconveniences, but only because others don’t do the same. High-speed railways take less resources to operate per passenger and reach about half the speed of an airplane (if you take time spent at airports into account), but the service is unusably.bad because everyone flies. And all the nice ready-made food is meat-based, because the other stuff doesn’t have enough markets and is therefore too expensive, thus staying on the shelves
And also, public transit is not comfortable because it isn’t used by the rich, so there’s no motivation to.keep it at the level it has in Switzerland, where even the richest typically commute by train.
The greenhouse gas emissions.don’t need to be brought to zero fot us to.survive. We common.folk have the capacity to lower them by almost a fifth, which makes a huge difference in pur future
Yeah, the remaining 80-ish % is in the hands of the few, but in this case even our 20 % is relevant enough that your excuse is appalling.
I find it hard to believe that emissions would drop by 80% just by getting rid of all the billionaires. Or did you mean all of Western civilization when you said “those responsible for the other 80%”?
Why do you think we shouldn’t? (Or, alternatively, how do you come to a conclusion that someone thinks we shouldn’t go after those responsible for the majority of emissions)
Your thinking is extremely foreign to me and I would be interested in hearing your reasoning!
What you’re saying is we’re also to blame because we participate, as a society, in 10% of global emissions by flying. What about those same few who fly 2 people at a time in a private jet instead of 200+ in an airliner? People like that Starbucks CEO who would commute from LA to Seattle in a corporate jet, or any other rich fucker who can’t be seen near the poors and has to put out thousands on times the amount of emissions as the average person.
Sure, I’ll take my 0.000000001% of the blame, and Brian Niccol can take his personal 0.1%.
out of 8 billion people is 0.08 people. That does not compete.
No, there maybe about 2 billion people who actively use airplanes for holiday trips. And almost all of the planes’ emissions come from them. So, take 0.000000003% of that blame.
But really: As much as I hate those private jets as a concept, their share of the total emissions of all flights are negligible.
There is a website called FlightRadar24 where you can see airplanes currently in flight. You have very few private jets among the huge passenger planes. I’d say maybe one private plane to 50-ish large planes or so? And remember, a private jet is so much lighter than those big jets for hundreds of passengers that their fuel consumption is also a fraction.
Yes, also the rich should absolutely do their part. But in this case, because they are so very few, them doing or not doing their part won’t be visible under the line. Their effect on airplanes’ total emissions is so small that it gets eaten by the error margin. No, in this case other people being very very shitty does not mean that we 99.9 % can be shitty as well.
In any case, who is to blame is a stupid thing to concentrate on here.
We know that billions of people are likely to die because of climate change. Reducing the emissions by 10 % can easily save the lives of several hundred million people. Possibly even over a billion. If I need to do something that is unfair towards me to keep my children alive, then I will do that.
It’s a bit like if someone robs you and it’s clear that they will kill you if you don’t give the contents of your wallet – a 100 € note and a 20 € note – it is very clear that the robber’s behaviour is unethical. Will you burn your two banknotes and get killed by the robber just so that he couldn’t make it off with your money? Or will you give him the 120 €, stay alive and continue your life?
I hate it when people go “Yes, of course I can kill my own children and your children as well because most rich people are killing children as well, and they kill more than I do!”
Someone being extremely shitty does not mean that you are allowed to be shitty. Not even if that someone is 5000 times as shitty as you.
To stay alive as a species, we must cut our emissions. If the only way to do so is unfair towards me, then so be it.
You’re right, it’s actually the poors fault! Lol /s what a stupid fucking take. Thanks for adding the same thing to the conversation that oil lobbyists were saying in the 70s
The oil lobbyists have been saying since the 70’s that they are responsible to the biggest share of greenhouse gas emissions?! Please show me even one place where they’ve made that claim.
Come on, about 10% of greenhouse gas emissions come from flying. Amd that’s done almost exclusively by the common folks, not the tiny minority. A kilometre by train causes 99 % less (electric) or about 70 % less (diesel) emissions per kilometre than an airplane does, and is a viable way to travel, but people still fly. Because they prefer being assholes and kil their own children if not doing.so would inconvenience them evem just a little.
The problem will always be price. So travelling to another country? I’m in the UK so it’s a bit limiting. But if I want to go to Paris. I picked a week a month away from now. So it should be too expensive, or too cheap. By eurostar the cheapest option is £95, by plane £74.
But the same is true of car vs train in the UK and it’s frankly at ridiculous levels. If I want to go into London from where I live (which is in a home county) it will cost £40 for a return on the same day. However if I drive, even in an older car that is subject to ULEZ. Then the cost is:
£12.50 ULEZ
£15 congestion charge (although really, there’s plenty of places you can park outside the congestion zone but very central to pick up the tube to avoid this)
£5 worth of fuel.
Parking, depends. At the weekend there are many places you can reliably park for free.
It’s always cheaper than the train. But, notably if you park outside of the congestion charge zone, it’s significantly cheaper. If you’re two people travelling or in a ULEZ compliant vehicle it’s entirely a no-brainer. Here’s an interesting point. People are happy to park inside the ULEZ but outside the congestion charge zone and take the tube. Do you know why? It’s because coincidentally the last train stations outside the congestion charge zone are also the same station the fare is suddenly 2x the fare from the first station inside. Travelling within London on the tube, train and bus is affordable and mostly convenient. Getting in from outside, even a mile outside is not.
They need to fix this. The average person votes with their wallet, with convenience coming second. Train travel needs to be affordable and convenient. If it’s cheaper and convenient to use, people will use it and leave their cars at home.
But look, CO2 per mile is way more in a private plane. We really need to be putting MUCH more into stopping that. Just because the total from the normal folk is less than the rich boys (and girls), doesn’t mean the onus is on the rest of us. Per person they are doing a lot more to destroy the planet than the hoi polloi.
By eurostar the cheapest option is £95, by plane £74.
So, someone gives you a bribe of 21 £ and you are ready to increase your emissions hundredfold for such a paltry bribe? Seriously? With this price difference there should be absolutely nothing unclear about the choice!
I’m in the UK so it’s a bit limiting.
It’s a bit funny that you’re telling that “I’m live smack in the middle of Europe so it’s a bit limiting” to a Finn. Look at the map. Every time I want to go to Central Europe, I need to first take a train to Turku for two hours, then board a ship, sleep on that ship, make haste to the 7:24 train in Stockholm, take that to Copenhagen (and currently there’s an extra change in Malmö), then take a train from Copenhagen to Hamburg. I’ve left Helsinki the previous day at 17:25 and now it’s the evening of my second travel day and I’m still only about as close to almost any possible destination than your home is.
And I can do that. As can 61 000 others (at least that’s how many members the Finnish Facebook group for travelling without airplanes has). Your complaints of having to pay 20 pounds more and travel two extra hours to get to France sound… Cutely innocent?
The pricing of car vs public transportation in Britain surprises me! Over here in Helsinki the cost of having and using a car is about 300 € per month. For some people a bit less, but for example my parents pay on average about 370 € per month for various car expenses. In comparison, the ticket for public transportation here costs only 80 € per month. That’s less than a quarter of the costs of a car. And if you want to look at the price for coming from further away, then the ABCD ticket, it costs 119 € per month, still less than half of what a car costs. And that covers already an area 60 km away from the centre of Helsinki.
So… I know the car tax is very high here, so buying a new car costs a lot more than in England. But much of the costs of a car come from repairing it, and I cannot imagine that’s that much cheaper in England than in Finland. Also, the fuel should cost about the same in both countries. Is the public transport ticket’s price in your city something like 200 £ per month, or how can the car be cheaper? I’d be interested in hearing how that works, because no matter how I try juggling the numbers in my head, I cannot really come to the result you’re telling.
I believe you when you say that the public transit costs more, but I’d be interested in knowing how they’ve managed to reach that!
But look, CO2 per mile is way more in a private plane. We really need to be putting MUCH more into stopping that.
Absolutely!
But at the same time, something like 99.99 % of planes’ emissions come from the planes used by Joe Average for their holiday trips. I would prefer putting effort into cutting four fifths of those flights away over stopping the private plane flights, because my effort is more efficiently used when it reduces the emissions by 80 % than when it reduces them by 0.01 %. Even if that 0.01 % means that one person is causing as much emissions as tens of thousands of other people together.
It’s about us staying alive.
So, someone gives you a bribe of 21 £ and you are ready to increase your emissions hundredfold for such a paltry bribe? Seriously? With this price difference there should be absolutely nothing unclear about the choice!
To be clear I didn’t tell you what I do. I said what most people will do. But in this case, yes I’m taking the more convenient and cheap option. I don’t see why you want to demonize normal people when the rich bois are tearing the planet up, and I don’t just mean with their travel. It’s ridiculous that the normal people are expected to save the environment when it’s a losing battle against the people effectively running the world.
It’s a bit funny that you’re telling that “I’m live smack in the middle of Europe so it’s a bit limiting” to a Finn. Look at the map. Every time I want to go to Central Europe, I need to first take a train to Turku for two hours, then board a ship, sleep on that ship, make haste to the 7:24 train in Stockholm, take that to Copenhagen (and currently there’s an extra change in Malmö), then take a train from Copenhagen to Hamburg. I’ve left Helsinki the previous day at 17:25 and now it’s the evening of my second travel day and I’m still only about as close to almost any possible destination than your home is.
You broke quoting here. In any case, I just meant that from here there’s only one way into mainland europe, via eurostar. There’s no rail competition and no other option other than ferry or air.
The pricing of car vs public transportation in Britain surprises me! Over here in Helsinki the cost of having and using a car is about 300 € per month.
What are the causes of those costs? Our car is already paid off, so no more finance. The annual excise duty is free on it (historically it was low emission for the time, and this somehow carries over, it works weird here, apparently next year it will be like £100 or so for the year though). Insurance probably works out to around £35-£40 per month (we’re not young any more and it’s not a sporty car). MOT, Service etc. £300 all in for the year most years. Actually I have an extra one I still need to book which is like £600. But it’s every 6 years or something like that. So not really to be factored in. That’s less than €100 per month not including fuel. But crucially, I do not live in a city. So the car is needed anyway. So I have to pay all this. So really the only thing to factor in is the cost of the fuel, and convenience of driving/not driving.
But at the same time, something like 99.99 % of planes’ emissions come from the planes used by Joe Average for their holiday trips. I would prefer putting effort into cutting four fifths of those flights away over stopping the private plane flights, because my effort is more efficiently used when it reduces the emissions by 80 % than when it reduces them by 0.01 %. Even if that 0.01 % means that one person is causing as much emissions as tens of thousands of other people together.
It’s about us staying alive.
This is nonsense (sorry!). I’ll say why. The 1% (and frankly probably the top 5%) aren’t only leading the way in destroying the planet with their travel options. They’re ruining it in every possible way. AI is leading the way in wasting water and energy which is for certain doing untold damage to our environment, and it will only get worse. Just as some countries are getting into the position of being able to produce the majority of energy from renewables, up come the tech-bros with a new way to ensure we need more energy from more, let’s say traditional sources.
We cannot win against these people. They don’t care, they won’t be convinced to care and anything we do is made moot by their overall actions.
We cannot win against these people. They don’t care, they won’t be convinced to care and anything we do is made moot by their overall actions.
We absolutely can win against these people. It’s our choice to buy their products. If people stopped just saying “the rich should do this, because they are the ones to blame”, and actually start thinking who they buy from, the problem with rich assholes would disappear.
Our apathy must end, and it never will end if we just go “it’s the rich, what can I do?”
It’s a bit like in the Russia: “It’s the politicians, what can I do?”, whereas elsewhere people do care about politics and things are much better than in the Russia. You won’t have agency if you volunteer to give it away.
We are the majority. It’s our planet. We can fix the shit very fast whenever we just get our heads off our asses. It infuriates me when I see people merrily buying Nestlé products, for example. WHY do they do it? Are they idiots or what?
Frome some people who are trying to defend flying. I’ve assumed their numbers make at least some semblance of sense for their argument.
But true, it’s too high. It’s more like, 10 to 15 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions from tranportation come from aviation. Which is still significant, but indeed more like 2-ish % of all greenhouse gas emissions. Still, it’s one of the sources easiest to mitigate. Agriculture causes over a quarter of all emissions, so that would be the most important thing to look into.
But also, it’s common to only look at the amount of carbon dioxide coming from the exhaust, while planes are problematic largely because they happen to travel at the altitude where their emissions hurt the most. As almost any sources I can find put the aviation’s share around 10 to 15 % of transportation’s emissions, and it has been so commonplace to ignore the altitude where planes travel, maybe the real number is more like 3 to 5 percent or so?
“A handful of people”?!
Come on, about 10% of greenhouse gas emissions come from flying. Amd that’s done almost exclusively by the common folks, not the tiny minority. A kilometre by train causes 99 % less (electric) or about 70 % less (diesel) emissions per kilometre than an airplane does, and is a viable way to travel, but people still fly. Because they prefer being assholes and kil their own children if not doing.so would inconvenience them evem just a little.
Similarly, feeding one person with red mean causes about as much greenhouse gas emissions as feeding 10 vegetarians. No need to go full vegan, but decreasing consumption of meat would make another 10 to 20 %. And then there are the private cars, something in the ballpark of 5 %.
About a quarter of oyr greenhouse gas emissions are caused.by things that.are completely unnecessary. Yeah, at the moment all of those three would be inconveniences, but only because others don’t do the same. High-speed railways take less resources to operate per passenger and reach about half the speed of an airplane (if you take time spent at airports into account), but the service is unusably.bad because everyone flies. And all the nice ready-made food is meat-based, because the other stuff doesn’t have enough markets and is therefore too expensive, thus staying on the shelves And also, public transit is not comfortable because it isn’t used by the rich, so there’s no motivation to.keep it at the level it has in Switzerland, where even the richest typically commute by train.
The greenhouse gas emissions.don’t need to be brought to zero fot us to.survive. We common.folk have the capacity to lower them by almost a fifth, which makes a huge difference in pur future Yeah, the remaining 80-ish % is in the hands of the few, but in this case even our 20 % is relevant enough that your excuse is appalling.
So because we can account for 20% of emissions ourselves we shouldn’t bother going after those responsible for the other 80%?
I find it hard to believe that emissions would drop by 80% just by getting rid of all the billionaires. Or did you mean all of Western civilization when you said “those responsible for the other 80%”?
Guess who, in the end, owns all the factories, the powerplants, the cargo ships, the mines, and who lobbies in favor of them.
Who buys and uses all the stuff produced by those factories and delivered by those cargo ships?
Why do you think we shouldn’t? (Or, alternatively, how do you come to a conclusion that someone thinks we shouldn’t go after those responsible for the majority of emissions)
Your thinking is extremely foreign to me and I would be interested in hearing your reasoning!
What you’re saying is we’re also to blame because we participate, as a society, in 10% of global emissions by flying. What about those same few who fly 2 people at a time in a private jet instead of 200+ in an airliner? People like that Starbucks CEO who would commute from LA to Seattle in a corporate jet, or any other rich fucker who can’t be seen near the poors and has to put out thousands on times the amount of emissions as the average person.
Sure, I’ll take my 0.000000001% of the blame, and Brian Niccol can take his personal 0.1%.
out of 8 billion people is 0.08 people. That does not compete. No, there maybe about 2 billion people who actively use airplanes for holiday trips. And almost all of the planes’ emissions come from them. So, take 0.000000003% of that blame.
But really: As much as I hate those private jets as a concept, their share of the total emissions of all flights are negligible. There is a website called FlightRadar24 where you can see airplanes currently in flight. You have very few private jets among the huge passenger planes. I’d say maybe one private plane to 50-ish large planes or so? And remember, a private jet is so much lighter than those big jets for hundreds of passengers that their fuel consumption is also a fraction.
Yes, also the rich should absolutely do their part. But in this case, because they are so very few, them doing or not doing their part won’t be visible under the line. Their effect on airplanes’ total emissions is so small that it gets eaten by the error margin. No, in this case other people being very very shitty does not mean that we 99.9 % can be shitty as well.
In any case, who is to blame is a stupid thing to concentrate on here. We know that billions of people are likely to die because of climate change. Reducing the emissions by 10 % can easily save the lives of several hundred million people. Possibly even over a billion. If I need to do something that is unfair towards me to keep my children alive, then I will do that. It’s a bit like if someone robs you and it’s clear that they will kill you if you don’t give the contents of your wallet – a 100 € note and a 20 € note – it is very clear that the robber’s behaviour is unethical. Will you burn your two banknotes and get killed by the robber just so that he couldn’t make it off with your money? Or will you give him the 120 €, stay alive and continue your life?
I hate it when people go “Yes, of course I can kill my own children and your children as well because most rich people are killing children as well, and they kill more than I do!” Someone being extremely shitty does not mean that you are allowed to be shitty. Not even if that someone is 5000 times as shitty as you.
To stay alive as a species, we must cut our emissions. If the only way to do so is unfair towards me, then so be it.
You’re right, it’s actually the poors fault! Lol /s what a stupid fucking take. Thanks for adding the same thing to the conversation that oil lobbyists were saying in the 70s
The oil lobbyists have been saying since the 70’s that they are responsible to the biggest share of greenhouse gas emissions?! Please show me even one place where they’ve made that claim.
The problem will always be price. So travelling to another country? I’m in the UK so it’s a bit limiting. But if I want to go to Paris. I picked a week a month away from now. So it should be too expensive, or too cheap. By eurostar the cheapest option is £95, by plane £74.
But the same is true of car vs train in the UK and it’s frankly at ridiculous levels. If I want to go into London from where I live (which is in a home county) it will cost £40 for a return on the same day. However if I drive, even in an older car that is subject to ULEZ. Then the cost is:
£12.50 ULEZ £15 congestion charge (although really, there’s plenty of places you can park outside the congestion zone but very central to pick up the tube to avoid this) £5 worth of fuel. Parking, depends. At the weekend there are many places you can reliably park for free.
It’s always cheaper than the train. But, notably if you park outside of the congestion charge zone, it’s significantly cheaper. If you’re two people travelling or in a ULEZ compliant vehicle it’s entirely a no-brainer. Here’s an interesting point. People are happy to park inside the ULEZ but outside the congestion charge zone and take the tube. Do you know why? It’s because coincidentally the last train stations outside the congestion charge zone are also the same station the fare is suddenly 2x the fare from the first station inside. Travelling within London on the tube, train and bus is affordable and mostly convenient. Getting in from outside, even a mile outside is not.
They need to fix this. The average person votes with their wallet, with convenience coming second. Train travel needs to be affordable and convenient. If it’s cheaper and convenient to use, people will use it and leave their cars at home.
But look, CO2 per mile is way more in a private plane. We really need to be putting MUCH more into stopping that. Just because the total from the normal folk is less than the rich boys (and girls), doesn’t mean the onus is on the rest of us. Per person they are doing a lot more to destroy the planet than the hoi polloi.
So, someone gives you a bribe of 21 £ and you are ready to increase your emissions hundredfold for such a paltry bribe? Seriously? With this price difference there should be absolutely nothing unclear about the choice!
It’s a bit funny that you’re telling that “I’m live smack in the middle of Europe so it’s a bit limiting” to a Finn. Look at the map. Every time I want to go to Central Europe, I need to first take a train to Turku for two hours, then board a ship, sleep on that ship, make haste to the 7:24 train in Stockholm, take that to Copenhagen (and currently there’s an extra change in Malmö), then take a train from Copenhagen to Hamburg. I’ve left Helsinki the previous day at 17:25 and now it’s the evening of my second travel day and I’m still only about as close to almost any possible destination than your home is.
And I can do that. As can 61 000 others (at least that’s how many members the Finnish Facebook group for travelling without airplanes has). Your complaints of having to pay 20 pounds more and travel two extra hours to get to France sound… Cutely innocent?
The pricing of car vs public transportation in Britain surprises me! Over here in Helsinki the cost of having and using a car is about 300 € per month. For some people a bit less, but for example my parents pay on average about 370 € per month for various car expenses. In comparison, the ticket for public transportation here costs only 80 € per month. That’s less than a quarter of the costs of a car. And if you want to look at the price for coming from further away, then the ABCD ticket, it costs 119 € per month, still less than half of what a car costs. And that covers already an area 60 km away from the centre of Helsinki. So… I know the car tax is very high here, so buying a new car costs a lot more than in England. But much of the costs of a car come from repairing it, and I cannot imagine that’s that much cheaper in England than in Finland. Also, the fuel should cost about the same in both countries. Is the public transport ticket’s price in your city something like 200 £ per month, or how can the car be cheaper? I’d be interested in hearing how that works, because no matter how I try juggling the numbers in my head, I cannot really come to the result you’re telling. I believe you when you say that the public transit costs more, but I’d be interested in knowing how they’ve managed to reach that!
Absolutely! But at the same time, something like 99.99 % of planes’ emissions come from the planes used by Joe Average for their holiday trips. I would prefer putting effort into cutting four fifths of those flights away over stopping the private plane flights, because my effort is more efficiently used when it reduces the emissions by 80 % than when it reduces them by 0.01 %. Even if that 0.01 % means that one person is causing as much emissions as tens of thousands of other people together. It’s about us staying alive.
To be clear I didn’t tell you what I do. I said what most people will do. But in this case, yes I’m taking the more convenient and cheap option. I don’t see why you want to demonize normal people when the rich bois are tearing the planet up, and I don’t just mean with their travel. It’s ridiculous that the normal people are expected to save the environment when it’s a losing battle against the people effectively running the world.
You broke quoting here. In any case, I just meant that from here there’s only one way into mainland europe, via eurostar. There’s no rail competition and no other option other than ferry or air.
What are the causes of those costs? Our car is already paid off, so no more finance. The annual excise duty is free on it (historically it was low emission for the time, and this somehow carries over, it works weird here, apparently next year it will be like £100 or so for the year though). Insurance probably works out to around £35-£40 per month (we’re not young any more and it’s not a sporty car). MOT, Service etc. £300 all in for the year most years. Actually I have an extra one I still need to book which is like £600. But it’s every 6 years or something like that. So not really to be factored in. That’s less than €100 per month not including fuel. But crucially, I do not live in a city. So the car is needed anyway. So I have to pay all this. So really the only thing to factor in is the cost of the fuel, and convenience of driving/not driving.
This is nonsense (sorry!). I’ll say why. The 1% (and frankly probably the top 5%) aren’t only leading the way in destroying the planet with their travel options. They’re ruining it in every possible way. AI is leading the way in wasting water and energy which is for certain doing untold damage to our environment, and it will only get worse. Just as some countries are getting into the position of being able to produce the majority of energy from renewables, up come the tech-bros with a new way to ensure we need more energy from more, let’s say traditional sources.
We cannot win against these people. They don’t care, they won’t be convinced to care and anything we do is made moot by their overall actions.
We absolutely can win against these people. It’s our choice to buy their products. If people stopped just saying “the rich should do this, because they are the ones to blame”, and actually start thinking who they buy from, the problem with rich assholes would disappear. Our apathy must end, and it never will end if we just go “it’s the rich, what can I do?”
It’s a bit like in the Russia: “It’s the politicians, what can I do?”, whereas elsewhere people do care about politics and things are much better than in the Russia. You won’t have agency if you volunteer to give it away.
We are the majority. It’s our planet. We can fix the shit very fast whenever we just get our heads off our asses. It infuriates me when I see people merrily buying Nestlé products, for example. WHY do they do it? Are they idiots or what?
Where the hell did you get that absurd number for?
Frome some people who are trying to defend flying. I’ve assumed their numbers make at least some semblance of sense for their argument.
But true, it’s too high. It’s more like, 10 to 15 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions from tranportation come from aviation. Which is still significant, but indeed more like 2-ish % of all greenhouse gas emissions. Still, it’s one of the sources easiest to mitigate. Agriculture causes over a quarter of all emissions, so that would be the most important thing to look into.
But also, it’s common to only look at the amount of carbon dioxide coming from the exhaust, while planes are problematic largely because they happen to travel at the altitude where their emissions hurt the most. As almost any sources I can find put the aviation’s share around 10 to 15 % of transportation’s emissions, and it has been so commonplace to ignore the altitude where planes travel, maybe the real number is more like 3 to 5 percent or so?