Hacker News Reader

Comment by systemtest | Hacker News Reader

I'm not bothered by the price. As a freelancer, I run a business. And businesses should be held accountable for their actions and their impact on the climate. It would be hypocritical for me to complain about Shell using their corporate structure to ruin the earth while my own business is buying plane tickets for European destinations.

So I have no problem with having a little less profit at the end of the year if it means that my business operates with zero-emissions.

View on HN

If you are truly trying to reduce emissions, it is probably far more effective to buy the $150 plane ticket, and then buy $300 in carbon credits, or solar power or something like that.

You seem to be spot on. According to ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) the carbon footprint of a flight from Malaga -> Amsterdam for 1 person is about 0.161t (metric ton) [1]. One carbon credit gives you the right to release 1t carbon dioxide and according to the NYT (2019) one 1 carbon credit is worth no more than $30 [2]. So, in taking the plane you release 0.16t, but you can prevent the release of up to $300/$30 = 10t with the money you save.

So sure, the train releases less CO2, but if you instead fly and buy carbon credits you prevent 62 times your carbon footprint from the plane ever being released into the atmosphere. But I'm starting to wonder, does my math really check out here? These numbers seem kinda absurd.

1: https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/CarbonOffset/P...

2: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/02/climate/prici...

EDIT: I made some edits to a better source, my inital source reported a flight would release 0.4t when in reality it's closer to 0.2

Great, so now we have more trees in a country that I will likely not visit. Meanwhile the people in my own country are suffering from the local pollution caused by planes and corresponding infrastructure. The noise a plane makes. The gigantic space that the airport needs. The local wildlife that suffers.

I was under the impression that carbon dioxide was largely a global problem. I don't have the knowledge to comment on that, or the other problems you brought up - in fact, I don't have much of an established opinion on the topic at all. I just wanted to present some math on how you could theoretically contribute to there being 62 times less CO2 in the atmosphere overall - if that's in your interests. I can't comment on the other intricacies (I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything, I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.)

Trains aren't that great either, unfortunately. Airports are a stain on a place, but railways cut huge stretches of habitats in two. Wildlife passes can help, but it's expensive to build a lot of them, and they're not a panacea. Plus, in some places you have to destroy valuable natural areas if you need to build more rail.

Still, until we have planes that pollute dramatically less (both in gases and in noise), they're the best we have.

You would probably have less trees in that country actually, give that trees need carbon dioxide to grow.

I wish I could upvote this more. And thanks for sharing this. It’s good to know I’m not alone and not the only “lunatic”.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com