Climate change and human responsibility

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

I am not a climate denier at all. I do believe the planet is warming.

My issue with all of this is that people like me would take this a bit more serious if people like the 44th POTUS didn't fly all the way to Glasgow to deliver a speech on how burning fossil fuels is bad for the environment.

I think change is good. This change is going to be disruptive but good. It's a huge opportunity for new kinds of jobs.

However, I think symbolism matters. Doing COP26 over zoom like the rest of us have been doing meetings the last 18 months would make their pleas more palatable.

How seriously you take climate change is dependent on the behavior of the POTUS?

The reality of climate change is what it is. It doesn't magically become less serious or consequential just because the POTUS flew to Glasgow.

Look, I get the hypocrisy argument, I also wish he hadn't done that, but the reality of climate change doesn't change just because some politicians do hypocritical things.

[Azure]

I don't think its hypocritical at all that POTUS flies to a world leaders meeting. Doesn't matter where the meeting is.

Come on guys. World leaders need to meet face to face. We all know its a better form of interaction and it vastly increases your ability to hammer out a deal.

The hypocrisy is in what they want to do, and not that they met.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Azure

I don't think its hypocritical at all that POTUS flies to a world leaders meeting. Doesn't matter where the meeting is.

Come on guys. World leaders need to meet face to face. We all know its a better form of interaction and it vastly increases your ability to hammer out a deal.

The hypocrisy is in what they want to do, and not that they met.

Leaders are one thing, but apparently there were over 30 000 attendees. Considering average emissions from flights, excluding all other emissions from the conference, that's still around 30MT, or over 10% of Alberta's yearly emissions. It's not nothing.

[Azure]

Yup, and I already said that everyone else should have stayed home, but jeepers I didn't know there were that many people.

lol, that is unreal actually.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Leaders are one thing, but apparently there were over 30 000 attendees. Considering average emissions from flights, excluding all other emissions from the conference, that's still around 30MT, or over 10% of Alberta's yearly emissions. It's not nothing.

Most of them probably bought carbon offsets for their flights.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Most of them probably bought carbon offsets for their flights.

Well that changes everything.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Leaders are one thing, but apparently there were over 30 000 attendees. Considering average emissions from flights, excluding all other emissions from the conference, that's still around 30MT, or over 10% of Alberta's yearly emissions. It's not nothing.

Honestly who cares in the grand scheme of things. Is it a bad look - sure. Are your numbers likely wrong - also sure (highly doubt every took a flight that wouldn't have occurred without them doing that and the 30,000 is probably high).

Its just a distraction to a bigger discussion.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Honestly who cares in the grand scheme of things. Is it a bad look - sure. Are your numbers likely wrong - also sure (highly doubt every took a flight that wouldn't have occurred without them doing that and the 30,000 is probably high).

Its just a distraction to a bigger discussion.

Yes, my numbers were extremely averaged and ball parked, thoguh the 30 000 was directly form news reports. The point is, we are all being asked and are looking for new ways to do things that produce fewer emissions. Perhaps these conferences should also be spearheading these ideas, to show corporations that no, you don't need to fly everywhere and meet in person. There is a better way. Watch us. What hope do we have, if they can't even put the effort in to try it? During a global pandemic seems like a good time to give it a shot.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Yes, my numbers were extremely averaged and ball parked, thoguh the 30 000 was directly form news reports. The point is, we are all being asked and are looking for new ways to do things that produce fewer emissions. Perhaps these conferences should also be spearheading these ideas, to show corporations that no, you don't need to fly everywhere and meet in person. There is a better way. Watch us. What hope do we have, if they can't even put the effort in to try it? During a global pandemic seems like a good time to give it a shot.

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.

[Fuzz]

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.

That was exactly why I made the comment.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Leaders are one thing, but apparently there were over 30 000 attendees. Considering average emissions from flights, excluding all other emissions from the conference, that's still around 30MT, or over 10% of Alberta's yearly emissions. It's not nothing.

Every hour a whole plane is in flight emits approximately 1/4 ton of GHG eq. Even if all 30,000 took private planes I'm not sure you could get to a percentage of that number.

10% of Alberta's yearly emissions is 27,000,000 tons of CO2e
https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-an...20per%20capita.

An 8 hour flight creates about 2 tons CO2e

https://www.carbonindependent.org/22.html

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Every hour a whole plane is in flight emits approximately 1/4 ton of GHG eq. Even if all 30,000 took private planes I'm not sure you could get to a percentage of that number.

10% of Alberta's yearly emissions is 27,000,000 tons of CO2e
https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-an...20per%20capita.

An 8 hour flight creates about 2 tons CO2e

https://www.carbonindependent.org/22.html

I just assumed 1 ton per person, about a 4 hour flight. 30 000 people, 30 000 tons, and oh my, I've made a giant math mistake.

[Geraldsh]

But out of those 30,000 attendees, I bet 99% farted while they were there…methane!

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

That was exactly why I made the comment.

The symbolism of personal sacrifice isn't as important as signaling what policy shifts need to happen

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Aviation is responsible for only 2% of emissions, so cutting these flights is more performative theater than going.

2% is about the global percentage Canada emits so us going to zero emissions is performative theater.

I'll just say it, your argument is terrible. Emissions are like weight reduction in a car, you chop away as much as possible from every single component to get to your target.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by zamler

2% is about the global percentage Canada emits so us going to zero emissions is performative theater.



I'll just say it, your argument is terrible. Emissions are like weight reduction in a car, you chop away as much as possible from every single component to get to your target.

I'm confused by the 2% comment. Are you suggesting by not flying to COP26 somehow that 2% is affected? Those flights would be 0.001% of that 2%. Them flying or not changes literally nothing in real terms. We're arguing about symbolism here because the GHG emissions of those flights are less than negligible. I'm not sure what your point with Canada's emissions is.

My argument is: there will be more substantive policy shifts and global political will by getting together than not. That's it. Symbolism matters and the symbolism of sacrificing a flight <<<< than the symbolism of global leaders showing this in an important matter to work together on.


If you want to have the "I'm not cleaning my filthy house until others do!" argument, have at it. Seems silly to me but go ahead. Leaders going or not to the conference is completely unrelated to that argument

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

If you want to have the "I'm not cleaning my filthy house until others do!" argument, have at it. Seems silly to me but go ahead. Leaders going or not to the conference is completely unrelated to that argument

My carbon footprint is something like 4.44444444444e-10 of total in Canada, means nothing in real terms.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

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.

Aviation is a legitimate target because almost all of it is unnecessary leisure and business travel. Reducing vacations to Cancun and prestige business travel is cutting back on a luxury good. It would be less painful than increasing the cost of growing and transporting food around the globe, for instance.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by zamler

My carbon footprint is something like 4.44444444444e-10 of total in Canada, means nothing in real terms.

Correct!! This is exactly my point. We can't be looking for individual contributions. If we ask people to skip flying vacations, buy local and looked for low carbon options for stuff, we likely make almost zero impact.

But if governments get together and make policy changes regarding EV adoption, electric generation, construction, and industrial processes we can make massive change. So why insist on personal sacrifice first? It makes no sense

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Aviation is a legitimate target because almost all of it is unnecessary leisure and business travel. Reducing vacations to Cancun and prestige business travel is cutting back on a luxury good. It would be less painful than increasing the cost of growing and transporting food around the globe, for instance.

Except we have to do it all. You can't shave aviation's 2% contribution in half and think that will somehow offset the changes needed in 40% of the emissions. And even if it did, decimating one industry so we don't harm another isn't a persuasive argument anyways