this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2024
364 points (99.2% liked)

World News

39102 readers
2275 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Air New Zealand has abandoned a 2030 goal to cut its carbon emissions, blaming difficulties securing more efficient planes and sustainable jet fuel.

The move makes it the first major carrier to back away from such a climate target.

The airline added it is working on a new short-term target and it remains committed to an industry-wide goal of achieving net zero emissions by 2050.

The aviation industry is estimated to produce around 2% of global carbon dioxide emissions, which airlines have been trying to reduce with measures including replacing older aircraft and using fuel from renewable sources.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 19 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

With this logic there's no sector that would have an impact significant enough that we should worry about it.

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

I disagree. Electricity generation and industrial processes are emitting many times more greenhouse gases than air travel. If you eliminated all emissions from electricity generation tomorrow it would make a massive difference, far exceeding the 2% of air traffic. Looking at an EPA source electricity generation is 25%, industry is 23%, and transportation less air transport is 26%.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

transportation less air transport is 26%

Then the trucking industry will say "But just our sector isn't that bad, why not concentrate on ships?" and then the shipping industry will say "But just our sector isn't as bad as electricity production!" and so on.

What you're doing is exactly the same thing most people are doing to justify not making any effort "I won't make a difference by myself, why should I do anything?"

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works -3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I just don’t see people taking vacations or seeing relatives across the country as being the problem at this point in time. I think the limited resources we have to pursue environmental changes could be spent significantly better elsewhere.

If you came up with a revolutionary technology that saved an astounding 50% of the air transport emissions, you’ve eliminated 1% of total global emissions.

If you come up with a much more mundane technology that saves only 10% of electricity generation emissions, you’ve eliminated >2% of total global emission, more than twice the impact.

Limited resources would be much more effectively applied starting with the largest polluters.

I don’t think kneecapping air travel, pissing off many normal people, for little environmental benefit, is the way to get people to start seriously caring about emissions. It’s just going to fuel more reactionary bullshit and people completely missing the point, IMO.

As a side note, ships are way more efficient than trucking. Despite the scary numbers they put out, they also haul an insane amount of cargo.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

It doesn't require any resources for people to stop traveling thousands of km for leisure. It doesn't require any resources for people to stop buying crap and expecting it at their door the next morning. In fact, it frees resources to stop doing both these things.

I know that ships are more efficient, read what I said again with your reading comprehension turned on so you understand my point.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Trains, for the win!

  • There’s no reason trains can’t replace half of air travel, while leaving actual flying to longer routes and ocean crossings.
  • Trains can give people better choices for short to medium distances, no need for suffering

Edit: ok, NZ is a tough situation

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

I’m all for nuclear powered high speed electric trains.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

But personal transportation and power are two places we Are making some progress, while emissions from flight keep growing. Current trends will make it a much bigger slice of the pie in a few years, but reducing emissions will take years of effort. It’s critical to start now

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Electric trains ftw