Just 1% of people are responsible for half of all toxic emissions from flying.

  • Zoolander@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    By that logic, all countries in the world besides China and the USA could stop reducing emissions because they only cause sub 10% shares of the total.

    No, because China and the USA are both affected by the emissions regardless of which one of them are responsible for them. In that case, the one we’re actually faced with, it makes more sense to tackle the emissions that are highest first and that have the lowest barriers. You pick the problems with the largest return on investment in time and resources. Airplanes are not that. Banning commercial flights for people is a fantasy and banning private jets, although something I agree with for other reasons, is not enough to make a dent.

    There isn’t a whole lot “outside that 5%”.

    Yes, there is. Cars, on average, have not lowered their emissions at anywhere near the same rate as airplanes have over the last 20 years and that’s including new electric cars. Until electric cars overtake gas-powered vehicles, which is currently projected to happen in 2031, there is enough within this sector alone that is more than 5% of the problem and that doesn’t require an absolute fantasy for a solution. And that doesn’t even touch manufacturing and industrial emissions which account for an even bigger slice because of the energy they use.

    You’re right… it all has to become 0 anyways but we don’t have unlimited time or unlimited resources. Efforts need to be prioritized to put the ways that are realistic and meaningful at the top and unrealistic ways that solve 5% of the problem at the bottom.

    • Don_alForno@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Fossil fueled cars aren’t going to get that much more efficient in the foreseeable future, especially since manufacturers know they are a dead horse.

      So what do you propose for that sector? Banning driving? And that’s then easier than banning private flying, despite far more people relying on it every day, it being far more decentralized and far harder to regulate for that reason? Globally, at that? I mean of course we should improve public transit to make it a better alternative, but that’s an equally monumental task that will take decades in most places.

      Air travel is definitely a lower hanging fruit as for the majority of people it’s a luxury, not a necessity.

      • Zoolander@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You do know that electric cars exist, right? Replacing gas powered cars, trucks, and semis would have a far more significant impact with less inconvenience and change required than it would to ban commercial air travel even partially. You say it’s a luxury but companies, families, and governments rely on it.