Hacker News Reader

Comment by perfunctory | Hacker News Reader

This is a good point. However, everything I read about air travel offset schemes suggests that the current price is way too low and does not reflect the true cost of offsetting. If people were pay the true price to offset their flights, the question is whether they would still choose to fly as much.

View on HN

If you cannot pay the price for sustainable flights you should not fly. The era of unsustainable consumption at the expense of future generations is coming to an end.

That seems a dangerous argument to make. Where do we stop? What other luxuries will we only allow to those who can afford the sustainable version of it? Warm water? Having a fulfilling job that unfortunately requires commuting?

Edit: to be clear: I’m not saying we shouldn’t do anything, I’m just saying the solution cannot be to make disparity between rich and poor even larger

How is it a dangerous argument to make? Are you arguing that you should be entitled to exploit the world's natural resources by making your children and children's children's generation pay for it? You can argue that, but it makes you selfish and entitled.

No, I’m arguing that by enforcing the use of sustainable options (i.e., “you are not allowed to fly if you can’t afford carbon offsets”) and by letting people pay for it, we will make the poor poorer and the rich richer. We would basically send the majority of the world population back into the Stone Age. To avoid a social catastrophe we either need successful technical solutions or significant redistribution

Simple. We all walk in the middle of winter four hours to and from our unheated homes and offices and work by candle light. Also candles cost 45$ for the carbon offset.

Billionaires continue to have their G-wagons flown around the world for them.

It can only get more expensive as well. As we de-carbonise other parts of the economy the opportunities for offsetting will fade away.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com