this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2024
364 points (99.2% liked)

World News

39367 readers
2312 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Air New Zealand has abandoned a 2030 goal to cut its carbon emissions, blaming difficulties securing more efficient planes and sustainable jet fuel.

The move makes it the first major carrier to back away from such a climate target.

The airline added it is working on a new short-term target and it remains committed to an industry-wide goal of achieving net zero emissions by 2050.

The aviation industry is estimated to produce around 2% of global carbon dioxide emissions, which airlines have been trying to reduce with measures including replacing older aircraft and using fuel from renewable sources.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 22 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Air traffic altogether is only 2% of global emissions. We could focus efforts to reduce emissions elsewhere without the negative effects on logistics and people traveling. Even if you completely eliminated all air traffic tomorrow it would be insignificant compared to other sources. Not that I think it’s a bad idea to reduce emissions from air traffic, but it’s going to highly impact people’s lives for barely a dent in emissions.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 4 months ago (1 children)

2.5% of emissions but 4% of global warming impact due to where the emissions happen. That's 1/25th of the global warming.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You can always detail something and say it's only x percent. Every percent counts, and we have to start with the ones that are not vital. Planes for vacations or luxury mangoes are very far from being vital.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago (7 children)

The way I see it, you’re taking away things people enjoy for a minuscule impact on climate. This will just piss people off for little benefit, and it’s not how you get people on board with the big changes we need to address the worsening climate. It’s like having to use shitty straws when industry is pumping gigatons of shit into the atmosphere. I believe the money pressure on airlines to use more efficient engines is actually doing a decent job at incentivizing efficiency in the air sector; it’s elsewhere that needs to be addressed harshly.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

If externalities were actually enforced on the air sector, it would be completely replaced with high speed rail except for travel across the ocean, and even then shipping would become more prominent. The problem of giving free passes is you are artificially strangling the alternatives. It becomes much more cost effective to build high speed electric rail when your only option for jet fuel is biodiesel or paying the real costs of climate impact.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

for a minuscule impact on climate.

who defines what is miniscule here? what if an oil baron deems 20% to be miniscule? do we all go swimming in their blackened beaches?

how is 2% miniscule? and who says that emission reduction exercises have to stop at 2%?

it's sometime very easy to minimise the seriousness of something with the clever use of generic statements. there are enough spin doctors already trying to pull the wool over our eyes--we don't need to help them by also shooting ourselves in the foot.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

Right, it's a lot better to give somebody a better alternative first if you want the public on board. Build up public transit, build up regional and high speed rail and leave planes for long distances that are unfortunately suited for trains and cars (e.g. international, cross-continental, etc.)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

It is not taking away vacations or delicious fruits, there are many lower impact alternatives for vacations and food, you just have to get out of the habits and trends, there are great things to discovers everywhere.
Also, I don't advocate for prohibition but rather for reduction proportional to footprint. Your dream is to take the plane to go to another continent? Do it, but maybe once every 5 years instead of every year, and switch to train and discovery of your region with hiking for the other years.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

If we don't start taking away things that people enjoy then in a hundred years it won't be an issue anymore 👍

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

That attitude is how you make no progress on climate

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I start in a similar place but go the other direction. Airline travel is an important personal luxury, and crucial to global business or politics. While in the ideal it may be unnecessary, you’re not going to get people to give it up willingly, and they’d argue there’s no other option for such travel. So, what can we do?

The industry is great at adopting efficient technology but it can’t even keep up with growth in demand, much less reduce carbon emissions. So what else can we do?

  1. We need to drive/incent/require widespread usage of Synfuel/biofuel. At least then you’re just moving carbon currently active in the carbon cycle, rather than adding yet more carbon that’s been sequestered for hundreds of millions of years.
  2. Trains. We need to spend a lot more on trains. In this case we need to give people a more climate friendly option for travelling between cities up to 500 miles or so apart. We need trains to replace every short flight, so the carbon emissions from flying are at least only spent when there’s no other option. I read that France has started with bans on flights between a few cities with good rail service. Here in the US, we’re way behind with high speed rail but Acela is good enough to replace flying between a few cities, like Boston to NYC
[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

I agree, having alternatives to air transportation is key. Trains are second. Just banning air transportation or imposing some fees will just make people angry and, I believe, hamper progress towards reducing the amount of CO2 we’re putting into the atmosphere.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

Almost every emissions issue is a small part of the whole

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I believe the expectation is for that to change pretty rapidly.

Emissions from airlines is expected to continue growing and alternatives like biofuel/synfuel and expanded rail are too long term or not happening.

However the biggest emitters are being addressed. Scaling out renewable energy, ending coal, and scaling out EVs can significantly reduce the worst sources of carbon emissions (they’ll still be the worst but significantly less)

Then airlines become a contender and are no closer to a resolution