Hacker News Reader

Comment by severino | Hacker News Reader

If you're worried about climate change, you should not spend your time and resources trying to reduce your own CO2 emissions, but instead, supporting and promoting regulations that force people like yosito to not being able to travel that much, so they will also forcibly start to reduce their footprint.

View on HN

I get what you're saying about limiting air travel, but let's look at the bigger picture.

Commercial flights make up around 2% of global carbon emissions, so forcing people like me not to travel is not going to make a significant dent in climate change. Focusing on industries and companies that are responsible for the bulk of emissions might be a better way to go.

Rather than trying to control individuals, we need to hold industries and corporations accountable. Pushing for policies that target high-emitting sectors like energy, transportation, and agriculture can create real change. By tackling the main culprits, we have a better shot at making a difference.

Cheers!

Absolutely, I agree. And while we were talking about commercial flights, it's true that it's only a small part of the problem. But my message was that I think there is no point in trying to cut down your emissions individually while no one else does. So I think it's either we put limits (both for individuals but also and specially for industries and corps) or we forget about it and just keep having fun until we no longer can.

Cheers!

I don't think there's a lot of value in putting limits on individuals. That's not an effective way to change the problem at scale. But FWIW, the average American can an annual carbon footprint of 16-17 metric tons of CO2. Here's some back of the napkin math estimating my annual carbon footprint:

750 kg (home energy) + 50 kg (public transportation) + 3,000 kg (flights) + 2,000 kg (diet) + 500 kg (shopping and waste) = 6.3 metric tons of CO2 per year, not bad for someone from a developed country.

That's interesting, now I wonder what the average American does to have a footprint of 16t, as they don't take that number of flights yearly.

I think this is a very myopic view. Perhaps OP has a specialist expertise making the travel absolutely necessary?

Focus on improving, not limiting. Invest in battery technology, throw billions at it and we will have carbon free air travel

Batteries are not really considered at realistic option for airplanes, AFAIK. The best hope is that they can use synthetic fuel, at a cost of, say, x7 the current price. Regulation could definitely help make that happen -- and those who fly a lot should have to pay for the real price of their transport.

> those who fly a lot should have to pay for the real price of their transport

Carbon offsets for a transatlantic flight cost about $15-30. Challenge accepted.

We all know how much of a scam carbon offsets are atm. Realistically I think it will be at least twice that amount just for carbon taxes, never mind the additional fuel price.

According to whom. There are multiple competing startups developing electric airplanes for regional commercial travel.

> at a cost of, say, x7 the current price

Where does that estimate come from?

I totally disagree. Change needs to begin with yourself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com