this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2023
1273 points (90.0% liked)

Fuck Cars

9699 readers
1910 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector

All aviation is 1.9% .. Private would be a vanishingly small amount of that.

[–] Francisco 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That link does not have information on the contribution of private aviation. You are assuming it.

In this BBC article on What's the climate impact of private jets you can read that

"Emissions per kilometre travelled [using an airplane] are known to be significantly worse than any other form of transport.

(...)

Private jets generally produce significantly more emissions per passenger than commercial flights."

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes the BBC article is correct too. Just because CO2 emissions per km travelled are high doesn't mean they're statistically relevant in terms of total emissions. All aviation at 1.9% is basically not a meaningful amount of CO2 if you need a 50% reduction.

When weighted for KMs travelled a riding lawn mower is probably worse than a private jet by that logic.

[–] Francisco 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

1.9% is significant and meaningful, objectively, mathematically and statistically. It might not feel high to you. But that is your feeling.

And I suspect you are assuming that the path, you think uses the best strategy, to reach 50% reduction on emissions is the only available. Reducing emissions of the persons with most emissions is a valid priority, and these high emitters likely include aviation emmlissions.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

1.9% for people to go back to crossing the Atlantic on the titanic .. No more air freight. No more sunny vacations for anyone. That's all aviation gone. Now you find me the other 50% on that pie chart and picture the miserable world you're advocating for. Then realise no logical developing country is going to comply with that plan as that means freezing them at their current level and that this isn't a fixable problem through reductions .. And chasing several thousand high emissions worth individuals is an utter waste of time .. Let's just agree to disagree I suppose.

[–] jesus_talks 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you already knew the answer why did you ask?

[–] Francisco -2 points 1 year ago

Did I knew the source that supported the comment of /u/malaph, no, I didn't. I don't have premonition abilities.

Are you okay?