This is a good thing. Let them put those facial scans on a wall of shame. Generating CO2 should be as awkward and uncomfortable as possible. I'm waiting for airlines to remove all passenger seats.
So basically, it’s the same way it has always been, since we’re in the climate change situation because of rich countries, and I don’t think a lot of us in poor countries care to stop producing CO2, it’s our turn now.
“Everything is gonna burn, we’ll all take turns, I’ll get mine too”
I just don't think this is an easy thing to resolve.
I’m not sure about the situation everywhere but China gouvernement seems to care more than most other countries, rich or not. They flew a commercial plane with SAF in September. I personally think SAF is a terrible idea but give them credits for willingness.
I'm glad when an authoritarian regime does something that ends up being good but 1) I still dislike the regime, and 2) I don't think that's something you can rely on.
Plus I'm pretty sure (just like everyone else) they're doing this not to avoid climate change but because they have a huge opportunity coming out ahead as providers of cleaner means of transportation (IMHO they already kick ass in EVs and will be the dominant player in this market).
But your point stands and has a lot of merit. What remains of my point is that I suspect most people in China wouldn't care about CO2 if up to them, and most of the rest of the poor/undeveloped countries will continue to not care.
I detest the authoritarian government but in this case it’s hard to feel bad if it actually works. Our strategy of letting hordes of MBAs optimize for the quarterly report is racking up future costs and unfortunately I don’t think we have the luxury of being picky about who’s going in the right direction here.
A better approach would be rationing.
If air travel rationing would ever be implemented, instead of travel becoming a rich person's hobby (which it already is, for a very loose definition of rich, a definition loose enough that it also counts people with in-house bathrooms with running water and waste disposal systems as rich) it would become a powerful person's hobby.
Not that different IMHO.
But, just to be clear, I'm totally with you. It's just that I'm terribly pessimistic.
What kind of gives me little moments of joy is thinking of what the 3000 version of "Fall of civilizations" podcast will have to say about what is happening now.
> It is estimated that around 95% of the world’s population has never experienced air travel firsthand.
https://www.ncesc.com/has-only-5-of-the-worlds-population-ev...
Regarding jets vs mass transport, I think it is misleading to oppose them. Remove all the jets on the planet and we’ll have exactly the same sustainability trouble.
My old dad points the fault of rich people taking jets to go everywhere, and also the fault of "billion of Chineses starting to take more and more flight". His bi-monthly usage of plane for Holliday isn't worth considering through because he "has no choice, people have right to takes Holliday and we-the-world-middle-class are not the problem"
They used to. When I was growing up, way before budget airlines, buses used to be the way you traveled around Europe for cheap.
https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint has data from 2022 for passenger-kilometers in the UK:
Domestic flight 246 g
Diesel car 171 g
Petrol car 170 g
Short-haul flight 151 g
Long-haul flight 148 g
Motorbike 114 g
Bus (average) 97 g
Bus (local London) 79 g
Plug-in hybrid 68 g
Electric car 47 g
National rail 35 g
Tram 29 g
London Underground 28 g
Coach (bus) 27 g
Ferry (foot passenger) 19 g
Eurostar (to Paris) 4 g
Moreover, this ignores the future: there’s a straightforward path to electrifying a bus which has been deployed in production for years but no proven alternative for planes.
Since essentially every activity generates CO2, what you are essentially saying is that life should be made as awkward and uncomfortable as possible.
And this certainly feels like the approach many eco-activists are taking, triggering well-deserved backlash. The Green party in Germany, for example, does extremely sensible politics in most areas, but mixes it with performative policies that are more about visibility (through causing inconvenience) than actually meaningful impact. So every time your drink tastes like cardboard as your straw is dissolving, you're reminded to vote for anything else. And "anything else" will most likely not enact the policies that might actually make sense (e.g. stricter carbon taxation).
I completely agree with your second point: the low-benefit performative stunts are so foolish that you’d be forgiven for thinking they were the work of undercover saboteurs.
> life should be made as awkward and uncomfortable as possible.
I have a hard time seeing good faith here but let say you really didn’t got it:
What he is saying is that CO2-problematic activities should be made more awkward and unconfortable than those that don’t. A cousin view would be to make substainable options easier and cheaper that others. You know like various incentives measures used everywhere in the economy to serve other goals we set earlier, like keep some domestic agriculture or tax more the cigarettes.