Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist
No. This is forest and trees stuff here.
Personal sacrifice was never the way this is going to happen. It needs policy changes and that needs governments getting together. Aviation is responsible for only 2% of emissions, so cutting these flights is more performative theater than going.
For example concrete is responsible for about 8% of greenhouse emissions. Even if going green doubles the price of concrete, it would only add a few percent on to total construction costs for some buildings. Companies themselves won't choose this route, butt policies could start a shift. Same with steel. Road transport is a bigger emitter than aviation and the switch to electric transport needs massive policy and investment shifts. To make these shifts, corporations need signals from government that this is going to happen and the policy environment is going to require it. If there's no EV incentives, nor fleet emission targets, does GM invest $30B in battery development? No, because they need some certainty it'll be money well spent
On the flip side, the politicking going on in Glasgow when there's an existential crisis is beyond infuriating. But these are politicians, and by definition they need to go where the political winds push them, so here we are. Symbolism matters when needing to push big change because the voters need to push this.
|
Well I am very familiar with the concrete issue, and one reason it is taking so long to switch out is because governments are slow to approve CLT & other alternatives to concrete as building products.