Hacker News Reader

Comment by foobarian | Hacker News Reader

This is like those Californian appeals to shower less to save water, when some ridiculous majority of water use comes from irresponsible agriculture. You can tell they are bullshit, and as a result through a 'crying wolf' effect they weaken the power of better informed calls to action.

Aviation contributes a relatively small amount of emissions in the transportation sector, which in turn also contributes about 1/4. So why does it have to go? Why not attack the actual big problems first? That would be passenger vehicles and medium/large trucks. I am pretty encouraged by where the industry is going so far, even if the trucking sector is not as far ahead as the passenger cars seem to be.

View on HN

> Harder, we must learn to let go across all sectors of the economy, for all countries, for all society strata.

I fully appreciate your frustration. I have a similar reaction when I hear cycling being proposed as a solution, with one difference: flying is largely an optional luxury, driving to work is not.

As an individual, flying roundtrip once from LA to NY, is sufficient to eat up about half the CO2 budget for the year. That is too much in itself. It does not mean that there mustn't be deep cuts everywhere else too. Americans, and especially well off Americans like the ones I expect populate HN, fly around without even thinking of the costs.

Therein lies the immensity of the task ahead: nobody is willing to give up their creature comforts. Not even relative luxuries like the vacation in Cabo. No, we rationalize our inaction by pretending the problem will solve by itself, via some futuristic tehno wand: carbon capture, fusion, solar power, anything but downsizing our expectations and desires.

For anyone who flies, aviation is a huge fraction of their personal emissions. It isn't about "targeting aviation." Just any individual (who isn't an anarchist) should reduce their flying. But as you say, they should also reduce their emissions from ground transportation.

Beyond the personal, on the broader political scale, I also don't know that targeting any particular thing makes sense. All emissions, from all contributors, need to fall. Something like a carbon tax would cleanly attack the least efficient carbon emitters first.

> I also don't know that targeting any particular thing makes sense.

There might be some targets that contribute more than their fair share: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/five-percent-power...

It's like optimizing code. You don't go optimizing everything willy-nilly, you profile first, and attack the most egregious hotspots.

> So why does it have to go?

It doesn't.

> even if the trucking sector is not as far ahead as the passenger cars seem to be.

Trucking fuel emits carbon, so getting an EV already reduces that footprint. Buying more durable goods also reduces shipping volume.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com