Hacker News Reader

Comment by zackmorris | Hacker News Reader

I thought the "Al Gore flies first class so let's not do anything about global warming" trope was dead, but I guess not.

That said, it would be refreshing if public figures led by example. So if we're serious about changing public perception, maybe we should create viable alternatives to jet airline travel and encourage them to use them. Here viable means getting there with comparable travel time and cost but fewer CO2 emissions.

Until then, without viable alternatives, criticizing environmentalists for traveling the way everyone else does is not a great look, and I think we're entering an era where we'll be seeing influencers and politicians called out for it in real time.

View on HN

>maybe we should create viable alternatives to jet airline travel and encourage them to use them.

What if alternatives are worse? Slower? More expensive? What if alternatives will only be available after we get a steady supply of biomass driven by clean fusion?

What if "encouraging" doesn't work?

Then what -- keep flying, pumping CO2 and sleepwalking into disaster we all know is happening?

> What if alternatives are worse? Slower? More expensive?

You're talking as if air travel isn't the slowest and/or most expensive option in some cases. See for example high-speed rail for travel distances under 800km.

> keep flying, pumping CO2 and sleepwalking into disaster we all know is happening?

Focus on solveable problems. If you plot on the vertical axis amount of CO2 emitted and on horizontal public enthusiasm, flying is in the bottom right. It's a stupid thing to lobby against because for each unit of effort expended you're removing comparatively little CO2.

> What if alternatives are worse? Slower? More expensive?

Just like the sacrifices they expect the rest of us to make? They want me to give up my car for one with worse range or no car at all, while they still get to own cars and fly on jets because "there aren't many rich people, it's only logical that we are given a pass for everything we want you to stop doing."

To the contrary, "sacrifice for thee but not for me" is not real leadership. They can't advocate that the work of common people is less important and can therefor be done by Zoom.

To your point, I don't think people take umbrage with creating or advocating for compelling alternatives. But there's a difference between that and playing the blame game.

> To the contrary, "sacrifice for thee but not for me" is not real leadership.

Right, it's indeed the "Al Gore flies first class so let's not do anything about global warming" zombie rising from the dead.

Your type won't shut up with this nonsense until you hear a hermit saying it from the comfort of his hut. Except you won't listen then as well.

Innumerable private jet flights around the world every year to attend circlejerk conferences in exotic locations, or hermitage. Those are indeed the only two choices.

more reason to focus on improvements that can be made across the board.

Leadership gets their power from the same plants as everyone else.

>Here viable means getting there with comparable travel time and cost but fewer CO2 emissions.

That's the rub. It's rarely comparable travel time except some point to points. Even in Europe. I travel by train within Europe (mostly) whenever I can. But it usually takes longer, costs more, and may involve sleepers on longer routes.

"refreshing if public figures led by example"

Not just refreshing, but absolutely crucial. If there is a critical shortage of something in 2024 politics, it is integrity and trust. Everyone can hold speeches, but few can do it in a way that doesn't make them instant hypocrites.

They're supposed to follow Greta's lead and mooch of rich people to sail them around the world.

Why fly at all? Why not hold meetings over the internet like other working people? Or organize the conference in Bradford or Blackpool, instead of some tropical paradise, and see how many people are still motivated to fly in?

> Why fly at all? Why not hold meetings over the internet like other working people?

Speaking as someone who flies for high-value meetings, I will beat the guy literally phoning it in about three times out of four solely because I expended the effort to meet in person. Partly because it's a social gesture, showing I'm willing to expend time and resources for the person [1]. Partly because we're human beings who connect better in person than virtually.

When the stakes are international relations, the CO2 impact of the flights is peanuts.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_exchange_theory

"When the stakes are international relations"

And what are the stakes in practice?

Meetings of the G7 probably have a real impact on international relations. But in this comparison, the UN is cargo cult politics (they pretend really hard to be doing it) and Guterres' travel to Tonga a barely masked vacation at someone's else's dime.

They're never going to do that. To them, we are ants in their ant farm.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com