Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Climate Change and Me [ericMPro] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ericMPro wrote:
ThisIsIt wrote:
sch340 wrote:
ThisIsIt wrote:
I still can't wrap my head around the flying less thing. If I decide to not take a flight to Kona, but everyone else does, how is energy use decreased? It only works if enough people decide to stop flying such that flights are cancelled, right?


It's aggregate demand over time and over a population. You taking one less flight now won't affect anything in the short term, but over time, if you and enough people fly less, airlines will alter flight schedules or employ smaller/more efficient planes on existing routes to accommodate.

Think about it this way - say a plane has 100 seats. If you take 100 less flights over your lifetime, you've reduced demand by one whole flight. Over time, this is worked into the aggregate demand forecasts by airlines and affects the total number of flights that go out.

It's a little bit different than say, driving less, in which you make an immediate impact, but that impact is super tiny and basically a rounding error. With flying, your behavior change only works over time but is a much bigger chunk when it happens.


Right, so it's a potential savings vs. an actual savings.

I get the impact could be large, I'm just skeptical that me not taking the one flight or so I take a year would ever actually save any energy.


Question: would you flying twice as often use any energy?

Also, it’s not energy so much as greenhouse gas emissions, which is more than just CO2

I would think the chance would be pretty low that me doubling my flying frequency would result in an additional flight being added at some point.

I was just using "energy" as a proxy for environmental impact or whatever.
Quote Reply
Re: Climate Change and Me [ThisIsIt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ThisIsIt wrote:
ericMPro wrote:
ThisIsIt wrote:
sch340 wrote:
ThisIsIt wrote:
I still can't wrap my head around the flying less thing. If I decide to not take a flight to Kona, but everyone else does, how is energy use decreased? It only works if enough people decide to stop flying such that flights are cancelled, right?


It's aggregate demand over time and over a population. You taking one less flight now won't affect anything in the short term, but over time, if you and enough people fly less, airlines will alter flight schedules or employ smaller/more efficient planes on existing routes to accommodate.

Think about it this way - say a plane has 100 seats. If you take 100 less flights over your lifetime, you've reduced demand by one whole flight. Over time, this is worked into the aggregate demand forecasts by airlines and affects the total number of flights that go out.

It's a little bit different than say, driving less, in which you make an immediate impact, but that impact is super tiny and basically a rounding error. With flying, your behavior change only works over time but is a much bigger chunk when it happens.


Right, so it's a potential savings vs. an actual savings.

I get the impact could be large, I'm just skeptical that me not taking the one flight or so I take a year would ever actually save any energy.


Question: would you flying twice as often use any energy?

Also, it’s not energy so much as greenhouse gas emissions, which is more than just CO2

I would think the chance would be pretty low that me doubling my flying frequency would result in an additional flight being added at some point.

I was just using "energy" as a proxy for environmental impact or whatever.

Right, but if you flew twice as often would there be an impact?

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”
Quote Reply
Re: Climate Change and Me [ACE] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ACE wrote:
sch340 wrote:
ACE wrote:


Over time however, if fewer people chose to fly the first step by the airlines would be reduce prices instead of canceling flights? If that is the case, when flying becomes cheaper an entire new group of people will step up to take those seats. Flying and travel around the world is valued way too much for it to ever stop or even be reduced by anything other than cost. If the government taxes flights so only the ultra rich can fly, then perhaps they get it done.

How about a flight to Kona costs $10,000 from LAX? Might be easier to get a spot in the race if you can afford the flight.


I agree with you, but that's not really the premise of the scenario that ThisIsIt was asking about. Instead, imagine a group of avid lavender-room keyboard warriors that are so committed to fighting climate change, that they decide never to fly no matter how affordable it is. In other words, a permanent secular demand drop for air travel.

Of course, this scenario probably won't ever happen, as with every other scenario that requires behavior change.

With regards to taxes, sure, the government can tax the hell out of flights to reduce demand, but then airlines would then go through another phase of bankruptcies because they have to recoup their high upfront capital costs. In which case the government would just bail them out, essentially nationalizing airlines. I'm sure that would be a fun scenario to play out.


I just see the permanent secular demand drop for air-travel voluntarily, as you say, something won't ever happen. Air travel opened up the entire world to everyone. Different cultures, people, places, activities, are all now available because of air travel. I feel confident there will never in my lifetime be enough people that stop flying out of concern for Climate Change to make a dent in demand.

I would think the greatest probability would be if frequent business flyers found ways to do what they needed to do without actually travelling to some destination, which would probably save the company money as well. Then again, I have no idea what percentage of business based flights that would apply to.
Quote Reply
Re: Climate Change and Me [ACE] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ACE wrote:
I just see the permanent secular demand drop for air-travel voluntarily, as you say, something won't ever happen. Air travel opened up the entire world to everyone. Different cultures, people, places, activities, are all now available because of air travel. I feel confident there will never in my lifetime be enough people that stop flying out of concern for Climate Change to make a dent in demand.

I completely agree with you. My point was more subtle in that this whole thread is looking for ways to fight climate change through behavior modifications, and that's really not feasible in any stretch of the imagination. Rather, we should provide people incentives to develop new technologies that can provide clean and cheap energy sources.

Strava
Quote Reply
Re: Climate Change and Me [ericMPro] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ericMPro wrote:
ThisIsIt wrote:
ericMPro wrote:
ThisIsIt wrote:
sch340 wrote:
ThisIsIt wrote:
I still can't wrap my head around the flying less thing. If I decide to not take a flight to Kona, but everyone else does, how is energy use decreased? It only works if enough people decide to stop flying such that flights are cancelled, right?


It's aggregate demand over time and over a population. You taking one less flight now won't affect anything in the short term, but over time, if you and enough people fly less, airlines will alter flight schedules or employ smaller/more efficient planes on existing routes to accommodate.

Think about it this way - say a plane has 100 seats. If you take 100 less flights over your lifetime, you've reduced demand by one whole flight. Over time, this is worked into the aggregate demand forecasts by airlines and affects the total number of flights that go out.

It's a little bit different than say, driving less, in which you make an immediate impact, but that impact is super tiny and basically a rounding error. With flying, your behavior change only works over time but is a much bigger chunk when it happens.


Right, so it's a potential savings vs. an actual savings.

I get the impact could be large, I'm just skeptical that me not taking the one flight or so I take a year would ever actually save any energy.


Question: would you flying twice as often use any energy?

Also, it’s not energy so much as greenhouse gas emissions, which is more than just CO2


I would think the chance would be pretty low that me doubling my flying frequency would result in an additional flight being added at some point.

I was just using "energy" as a proxy for environmental impact or whatever.


Right, but if you flew twice as often would there be an impact?

I don't think so. Unless I was the tipping point that led to the airline adding another flight from location a to b, which seems pretty unlikely.
Quote Reply
Re: Climate Change and Me [sch340] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sch340 wrote:
ACE wrote:

I just see the permanent secular demand drop for air-travel voluntarily, as you say, something won't ever happen. Air travel opened up the entire world to everyone. Different cultures, people, places, activities, are all now available because of air travel. I feel confident there will never in my lifetime be enough people that stop flying out of concern for Climate Change to make a dent in demand.


I completely agree with you. My point was more subtle in that this whole thread is looking for ways to fight climate change through behavior modifications, and that's really not feasible in any stretch of the imagination. Rather, we should provide people incentives to develop new technologies that can provide clean and cheap energy sources.

I agree there completely and think that is the area we should be focusing on. Get industry and government both to develop additional tech, clean energy sources to clean up the atmosphere and reduce the damage to the planet. 50 years ago, we had never heard or the internet (which now dictates much of human life). who is to say 50 years from now we won't have a completely clean energy source, a way to clean the oceans completely of waste and a verifiable way to change the climate to our benefit?
Quote Reply
Re: Climate Change and Me [ericMPro] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ericMPro wrote:
knewbike wrote:
ericMPro wrote:
knewbike wrote:
ericMPro wrote:


My prediction: everyone adapts just fine to the hot temperatures, but eventually we hit 1% on the CO2 scale and we walk around all day drunk w/ CO2 poisoning.


From 0.04% to 1% ? Surely you mean 0.1%


no, 1%. We'll get there eventually.


You have to go back 500 million years to find CO2 levels of 4000 ppm. I seriously doubt humanity will ever see 10000 ppm



We can do it! Have faith...

I'll do my part


Quote Reply
Re: Climate Change and Me [knewbike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I’m with you... I exercise a bunch and breathe out lots of CO2

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”
Quote Reply
Re: Climate Change and Me [sch340] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sch340 wrote:
The "have less kids" argument is silly and doesn't take into account the marginal human capital gained from an additional person.

But isn't it possible there is some inflection point, where although another person adds more human capital, the negative effects of the added consumption more than offset it?

As was pointed out, a wealthy child in America has the largest consumption effect (as compared to a child in a third world country), therefore they may need to contribute a lot of human capital to offset there consumption (e.g. CO2 footprint). There are two ways to increase human capital, have more humans or make them more productive. I think at this point in the history of the world we should be focused on productivity gains since in general it will avoid the negative effects of adding more humans.

Good thing for those Trump children, that't the marginal human capital we are going to need to save us from climate change.
Quote Reply
Re: Climate Change and Me [tri_yoda] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
tri_yoda wrote:
sch340 wrote:
The "have less kids" argument is silly and doesn't take into account the marginal human capital gained from an additional person.


But isn't it possible there is some inflection point, where although another person adds more human capital, the negative effects of the added consumption more than offset it?

As was pointed out, a wealthy child in America has the largest consumption effect (as compared to a child in a third world country), therefore they may need to contribute a lot of human capital to offset there consumption (e.g. CO2 footprint). There are two ways to increase human capital, have more humans or make them more productive. I think at this point in the history of the world we should be focused on productivity gains since in general it will avoid the negative effects of adding more humans.

Good thing for those Trump children, that't the marginal human capital we are going to need to save us from climate change.

Yes, it's a mathematical certainty that there is an inflection point. I doubt that it's possible to estimate, however.

I agree that we should focus on productivity, but you need human capital to invent productivity gains in the first place, no? It's sort of a catch-22 in that regard; more humans begets more productivity which then acts as a multiplier for the more humans available.

Strava
Quote Reply
Re: Climate Change and Me [LSchmitt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Vote.

“Read the transcript.”
Quote Reply
Re: Climate Change and Me [ericMPro] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ericMPro wrote:
chriskal wrote:
ericMPro wrote:
No, unfortunately the having fewer kids thing is solid, as is the qualification that it’s actually fewer rich kids at this point. It’s the lifestyle aspect.

Also, they’re not mutually exclusive, we can fix stuff with future tech and also mitigate with present solutions. I don’t underestimate the power of the human brain, nor do I underestimate the power of human nature. So let’s do both. Obviously fewer kids is not feasible/acceptable.

That said, there’s no way I’d give up my last kid, and still eat red meat and fly places. It’s a problem. I’m saving up for solar panels house battery and car though...



sch340 wrote:
The "have less kids" argument is silly and doesn't take into account the marginal human capital gained from an additional person. Technology has progressed parabolically since we figured out how to grow food efficiently, generate and distribute electricity, and cure most ailments that killed people before they were 50. Every doom and gloom model assumes that we'll continue spewing carbon at our current rates and will never figure out how to sequester it efficiently. Look at the Bill Gates example - he is creating advanced solar and nuclear technology that could possibly fix everything in the next 50-100 years. Our grandchildren will probably look back at this era of panic and laugh with their abundant, cheap energy and clean air. Don't underestimate the power of the human brain.

https://www.vox.com/...nge-world-population

However, there IS one thing that you can do though in the short term - if you qualify for Kona, don't fly halfway around the world with 150 pounds of bike gear!



ericMPro wrote:
stop eating meat.

Don't fly anywhere.

Live in a walkable city, and if you do drive, drive an EV powered by the juice stored in your giant house battery that is filled by your solar panels.

Edit: Add a crap-ton more insulation to your house.

Edit 2: Have one fewer child

Edit 3: Be poor


Why is having fewer kids not feasible or possible? I’m obviously not referring to the kids people have already had, but there is no reason a couple couldn’t make a conscious decision that the don’t really need to be able to field an entire baseball or hockey lineup with their children. Take away them extreme and I see no reason why people couldn’t stop at 2 vs. 3, 3 vs. 4 or 1 vs. 2.

Obviously that’s a choice and not a requirement, but if you have chosen to have multiple kids you don’t get to chastise me over the gas I run through my cars and boats. (Note: this has happened)

Courses of action need to be possible, feasible, acceptable, achievable, effective, etc. It's possible, but not acceptable to most people I would think. It's certainly not feasible as it's not easy or convenient or likely.

you know?

Honestly, I don’t. Having multitudes of kids is not required. Limiting oneself to 0,1 or 2 is certainly possible, feasible, achievable and, apparently, very effective at limiting one’s negative environmental impact. It’s also socially acceptable. It may not be acceptable to a particular individual, and that is certainly their choice, but that choice is an indulgence, not a necessity.
Quote Reply
Re: Climate Change and Me [LSchmitt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
1. Cycling to work.
2. Cut down on flying massively.
3. Buy 100% renewable power. I know that electrons mix once they're in the wires, but this supports the construction of new wind and solar farms.
4. Will put solar panels on the new house.
5. The next car will be electric. Not sure whether that's PHEV or EV right now.
6. Already vegetarian, but buying a lot more from the local farmer's market to reduce food miles.

'It never gets easier, you just get crazier.'
Quote Reply

Prev Next