boy is this girl in for a surprise..

[Raz'r]

The issue is then that either:

1. Gas is too cheap, so people indulge in fuel-intensive activities because it doesn't cost much

OR

2. Modern turbofan aircraft have become too efficient. They carry people a long way quickly on relatively small amounts of fuel. A DC-3 at 160 knots configured for 30 people is about 50 some SMPG. A modern turbofan is almost 4 times as fast and probably in the 70-90 SMG area.

To solve #1 you tax gas more and let people do what they will.

To solve #2 you need to hobble the airlines somehow. You could do something like make landing slots very expensive, make them fly slower - say make the 250 knot limit extend all the way to FL600, ration total tickets sold, or tax fuel specifically only for Part 121 Airlines and no one else.

The issue with all the "hobble the airlines" ideas is the airlines will quite rightly complain why THEY got to be the ones to take the hit. Why not tax Winnebagos or make giant pick up trucks illegal or something.

carbon tax....

 

[Chasm]

I think there are two problems

The lack of a test run before(!) publicly committing to the trip on the IMOCA.
The political cost of backing out now, in case it turns out to be a bad idea.

Not exactly the best combination. Not necessary either.
That said there is no reason to belief that they wont make it to NYC with Greta in good spirits. Good team, good support. As always a good dose of sheer stubbornness helps to make it to the finish.

 

[Crash]

I'm also bewildered by some folks..SOME folks insistence on measuring everything in dollars.

"The airlines will suffer, they'll lose money"....and so on.  Or "Chevron will lose money, do you have any idea of the economic impact....."

Well, yeah. They will.  That's kind of how the world operates. The manufacturers of steam engines lost market share in the early 1900's when other kinds of engines appeared.  It doesn't break my heart if Delta Airlines, or Chevron, or  Ford  loses money.

And yes, I understand that if Delta Airlines loses money then Delta employees will lose jobs and there's a human cost to it.  I got that. But things change when they need to and for every Delta employee that loses their job, a job can open up in another sector, that requires different skills.

But if travel becomes significantly more expensive, then who flys to the Caribbean to charter sailboats?  No or greatly reduced tourism would have a huge impact on those Islands/countries .  Worse by far then the hurricanes did. 

With no tourists traveling to Costa Rica, that economy also dies on the vine.  No eco tourists, means no more compelling reason to protect their rain forests, etc.  same for many African Countries and their game preserves to protect animals from poachers, etc. All funded from tourist dollars.  

Its easy to say you don’t care if someone from the “bad” industries lose their jobs, if it doesn’t threaten your ability to provide for your family.

I’m not suggesting do nothing. I’m suggesting the cost and pain of greatly reduced air travel is much larger than you have articulated, and will in negatively impact (other areas) of the environment.  

 

[Marty6]

Apart from a load of attention seeking, albeit for a good cause, getting kids to walk out of school and giving them a few days off and giving those hippies from extinction rebellion a reason to paralyze Central London,  can you quantify in real terms what she has 'achieved'? (apart from saving a trans-Atlantic plane ticket and she isn't there yet)

At least in Europe those kids skipping school achieved to put the fight against climate change and trying to achieve the promises made in Paris solidly back as topic number one on the agenda of most political parties. So yes, she and the movement have already achieved more than any other activists in the past years.

Oh how I wish fuel was the largest or dominant cost of flying (at least for GA). For commercial fuel cost drives everything.

And with airplane fuel being mostly tax free for commercial flying lies the main problem. If a flight of 400km/~250miles is cheaper than a train ride while taking the same time if you include waiting times (time you need to be at the check-in/security check/gate before departure) something is fundamentally wrong.

 

[KC375]

But if travel becomes significantly more expensive, then who flys to the Caribbean to charter sailboats?  No or greatly reduced tourism would have a huge impact on those Islands/countries .  Worse by far then the hurricanes did. 

With no tourists traveling to Costa Rica, that economy also dies on the vine.  No eco tourists, means no more compelling reason to protect their rain forests, etc.  same for many African Countries and their game preserves to protect animals from poachers, etc. All funded from tourist dollars.  

Its easy to say you don’t care if someone from the “bad” industries lose their jobs, if it doesn’t threaten your ability to provide for your family.

I’m not suggesting do nothing. I’m suggesting the cost and pain of greatly reduced air travel is much larger than you have articulated, and will in negatively impact (other areas) of the environment.  

There is no question that addressing greenhouse gases creates costs for some (or has them pay their fair share) will generating benefits or reducing costs for others.

For the purpose of debate let’s accept the climate change projections for Anthropocene global warming.

If so we are faced with trade offs like no reduction in travel and other greenhouse gas generating activity means the inhabitants of places like Kiribati will need to find a new home. So you have a choice of maintaining tourism in place like the Caribbean and losing not just tourism in Kiribati but the ability to sustain life in Kiribati.

IF you accept the need to reduce green house gases then it becomes a question of how. Charging for greenhouse gas emission (carbon tax) reduces emissions, encourages lower emission substitutes, ensures emissions come from the most valuable activities, and it generates revenue to offset the cost of emissions. In a rational/fair world that revenue would be invested in or spent on things that offset the harm of the emissions. Be that buying up the most vulnerable real estate (like the island Bangladesh is putting the Rohingya on) and paying to move the inhabitants to less affected countries or even countries benefiting from global warmings. Redistributing “pollution income” would allow investment in carbon sinks. All that farmland in Europe that the common agricultural policy pays to keep fallow should be reforested...

If you really want to get controversial with carbon sinks all the mature forests of the world should be harvested for construction (not for burning) and replanted. Mature forests are big stocks of carbon but about neutral in sink vs source. Regenerating forests are a significant sink. Yes clear cutting the amazon raises other issues so maybe not a good idea.

One of the challenges of global warming is that the losing countries are already the losing countries and the winning countries are the ones who have made a multi-century habit of extracting value from the losing countries. Will western Europe, the US and Canada be willing to help out the rest of the world?

 

[Crash]

At least in Europe those kids skipping school achieved to put the fight against climate change and trying to achieve the promises made in Paris solidly back as topic number one on the agenda of most political parties. So yes, she and the movement have already achieved more than any other activists in the past years.

And with airplane fuel being mostly tax free for commercial flying lies the main problem. If a flight of 400km/~250miles is cheaper than a train ride while taking the same time if you include waiting times (time you need to be at the check-in/security check/gate before departure) something is fundamentally wrong.

Why do we assume that the train's environmental impact is less than an airplanes?  Besides how much fuel each burns, the train tracks themselves have to cross all kinds of environments, cause all sorts of disruptions to animal migration paths, etc, etc.  At least when the jet is at flight level, it is not impacting animals, wetlands, etc directly by it's presence...the train track is, the noise of the train is...

Not saying trains are bad, or are not a valid (in Europe) alternative.  Only that they too have a negative environmental impact....

 

[Crash]

There is no question that addressing greenhouse gases creates costs for some (or has them pay their fair share) will generating benefits or reducing costs for others.

For the purpose of debate let’s accept the climate change projections for Anthropocene global warming.

If so we are faced with trade offs like no reduction in travel and other greenhouse gas generating activity means the inhabitants of places like Kiribati will need to find a new home. So you have a choice of maintaining tourism in place like the Caribbean and losing not just tourism in Kiribati but the ability to sustain life in Kiribati.

IF you accept the need to reduce green house gases then it becomes a question of how. Charging for greenhouse gas emission (carbon tax) reduces emissions, encourages lower emission substitutes, ensures emissions come from the most valuable activities, and it generates revenue to offset the cost of emissions. In a rational/fair world that revenue would be invested in or spent on things that offset the harm of the emissions. Be that buying up the most vulnerable real estate (like the island Bangladesh is putting the Rohingya on) and paying to move the inhabitants to less affected countries or even countries benefiting from global warmings. Redistributing “pollution income” would allow investment in carbon sinks. All that farmland in Europe that the common agricultural policy pays to keep fallow should be reforested...

If you really want to get controversial with carbon sinks all the mature forests of the world should be harvested for construction (not for burning) and replanted. Mature forests are big stocks of carbon but about neutral in sink vs source. Regenerating forests are a significant sink. Yes clear cutting the amazon raises other issues so maybe not a good idea.

One of the challenges of global warming is that the losing countries are already the losing countries and the winning countries are the ones who have made a multi-century habit of extracting value from the losing countries. Will western Europe, the US and Canada be willing to help out the rest of the world?

While I generally am not a fan of taxing as the answer to everything, I am something of a fan (convert?) of "consumption" taxes.  So I actually like the idea of a carbon tax.  I think it should be graduated, starting out to be relatively modest, and growing over time, to allow time for adjustment and change.  But to address a global issue like climate change, it needs to be a "global tax" where in everyone pays the same tax per unit of carbon generated. And therein lies the challenge.   I also think the "buying of carbon credits" must be done away with.  If you use a unit of carbon, you pay the tax.  Period.

 

[KC375]

...

And with airplane fuel being mostly tax free for commercial flying lies the main problem. ...

Current fiscal policy on greenhouse gas generating activities make no sense (at least from the point of view of pollution limitation). Most/many fuel taxes are styled "road use fees" or some approximation. So more or less the same fuel with the same environmental impact will have a relatively high tax rate when used in a truck, and very low rate when used in a tractor, or as heating fuel, or as Jet fuel or in a ship. Yet the all have about the same greenhouse gas emission.

 

[Marty6]

Why do we assume that the train's environmental impact is less than an airplanes?  Besides how much fuel each burns, the train tracks themselves have to cross all kinds of environments, cause all sorts of disruptions to animal migration paths, etc, etc.  At least when the jet is at flight level, it is not impacting animals, wetlands, etc directly by it's presence...the train track is, the noise of the train is...

Because trains can and should be powered by renewable energy (wind, solar), if electrified, and not finite fossil energy like gasoline and therefore the CO2 impact is much less. The main thing we need to talk about is not environmental impact overall (that's what slows us down so dramatically at the moment) but about climate impact because if we don't fix the climate component every other environmental impact won't matter since there are some irreversible milestones/tipping points which will change the world so dramatically.

The same is true regarding arguments in the direction "what will this do to this or that industry". We have to finally accept that infinite growth is a pipe dream/bubble sure to blast and the consequence e.g. in the area of people migration is going to be horrendous. The current migrations discussions/problems in countries are peanuts compared to the migration problems the industrial nations are going to phase through to climate change. That's the main reason why a financial perspective won't help.

 

[duncan (the other one)]

three downvotes on this pic?

You lot need to learn a little history.

 

[duncan (the other one)]

The challenge is, of course, that market pricing cannot adjust for the tragedy of the commons. That's where taxes must come into effect. A carbon tax is a good proxy.

and while people like you worry about a projected temperature rise which we can easily adapt to, the third world is dying of things like preventable disease and lack of access to clean water.

There is no cost-benefit analysis going on with regard to CO2 reduction.

 

[Rain Man]

Nothing new here. Kids have been screaming about adults since the beginning of time. Why is this lot so special?

Maybe ask the folks who nominated her for a Nobel prize?

 

[Gissie]

Maybe ask the folks who nominated her for a Nobel prize?

If I asked them do you think they would give an honest answer? They are all wanting to jump on the PR wagon being generated for their own selfish purposes. 

As for these millions around the world screaming we do something, maybe  should set examples rather than making noise. Don’t get driven to school, don’t eat food that has to be trucked or flown in for consumption, stop buying stuff not manufactured nearby. You know, the stuff that would make a difference but hurt at the same time. A trip on a carbon beast with piles of the latest gadgetry is just showboating. Even turning up to all these meetings is showboating if you are serious. A big screen and a phone would suffice. Greta could pontificate from her home all around the world with very little carbon being expended. 

But that would remove the photo ops and media glory from all those that you seem to take seriously just because they nominated her for a peace prize. The ones that are now using this girl for their own promotion. Paying lip service whilst being just more attention whores. 

 

[Upp3]

Sailing to the conference is good for PR but will she sail home after her 15 minutes of fame has finished?

She started almost a year ago. 

 

[Mozzy Sails]

The issue is then that either:

1. Gas is too cheap, so people indulge in fuel-intensive activities because it doesn't cost much

OR

2. Modern turbofan aircraft have become too efficient. They carry people a long way quickly on relatively small amounts of fuel. A DC-3 at 160 knots configured for 30 people is about 50 some SMPG. A modern turbofan is almost 4 times as fast and probably in the 70-90 SMG area.

To solve #1 you tax gas more and let people do what they will.

To solve #2 you need to hobble the airlines somehow. You could do something like make landing slots very expensive, make them fly slower - say make the 250 knot limit extend all the way to FL600, ration total tickets sold, or tax fuel specifically only for Part 121 Airlines and no one else.

The issue with all the "hobble the airlines" ideas is the airlines will quite rightly complain why THEY got to be the ones to take the hit. Why not tax Winnebagos or make giant pick up trucks illegal or something.

Yes, Gas is probably too cheap because the people selling it, or selling activities that burn it aren't paying the full cost. And there is difficulty in how this should be priced in considering the impact increase exponentially with the rate at which fuel burnt. 

But I wouldn't say that planes are too efficient.  Unless by efficient you mean efficient at facilitating people burning fuel quickly. I.e. they have lowered the time cost for the consumer of burning fuel. If a person on a plane burnt the same gallons per hour as a person in a (decent efficiency) car then there wouldn't be the same problem. I think that's a fair measure to hold the airline industry to, it's not beating on them.  In that case we shouldn't care whether people go to Greece or the seaside an hours drive away. 

In the UK giant winnebagos and giant pick up trucks are taxed more.

But it's a cultural thing that low cost high carbon travel has got us too. Everyone owns a car, people think nothing of living 30 miles from work and commuting everyday, with maybe 1 day a week in head office, which is a 2 hour flight away. People should either live closer to work and use public transport, or cycle, or work from home. We've spent the post war era around cars and planes rather than trains and bikes and it's now hard to back out of. 

 

[batkinmok]

I think shes the greatest. She persists in fighting a fight shes unlikely to win, but shes sure starting to get some people moving, and who knows, maybe in her lifetime she will be responsible for some real change. I am all for it, we need about 1000 more Gretas in the world. And who the fuck cares if the boat is made of plastic. If it was a wooden boat, the naysayer climate change deniers would say "but they cut down trees to build it and the paint is made of oil products", whatever. Im not doing the research but im willing to bet the distance traveled/emission ratio even on an open60 is pretty good.

And even if everyone says she's looney...

Everyone? You mean a bunch of north american morons whove decided not to "believe" in science because its inconvenient to their obnoxious lifestyle?

I thought that China or India was the most polluting?

Well you thought wrong.

 

[Laser1]

People should either live closer to work and use public transport, or cycle, or work from home. We've spent the post war era around cars and planes rather than trains and bikes and it's now hard to back out of. 

Excuse me but that is f8acking easy for you to say from behind your keyboard.

In the UK public transport in rural areas - well everything outside the axis London/Birmingham - has been cut to the bone and what is running is late, takes too f8cking long, is falling to bits and is hugely expensive.  Also you may be surprised to hear in this day & age and hyper connected world how many bosses still expect you to be on the doorstep of the office at 8 sharp.

People should .......  my arse!!

 

[teamvmg]

Just what is this " crucial climate change conference " in New York? Is her attendance crucial? If so. how? Hope she makes a difference.

Well, just maybe she is getting some Fuckwits around the world to take their heads out of the sand and discuss the shithole that they are leaving for their kids to sort out.

 

[The Q]

Excuse me but that is f8acking easy for you to say from behind your keyboard.

In the UK public transport in rural areas - well everything outside the axis London/Birmingham - has been cut to the bone and what is running is late, takes too f8cking long, is falling to bits and is hugely expensive.  Also you may be surprised to hear in this day & age and hyper connected world how many bosses still expect you to be on the doorstep of the office at 8 sharp.

People should .......  my arse!!

I've lived in deepest Wiltshire, the outer hebridies and coastal Norfolk amoungst many other places. There never has been good rural transport..

I did live close to work, then we got taken over and they halved the staff, so now I have to travel 25 miles each way a day to and from work.. The site i'm working at now has been taken over twice, the current parent company, is renown for taking over other companies, and "rationalising " sites. There is no way i can afford to keep moving house.

 If I want to use public transport, I have to walk 1.5 miles to the nearest bus stop an hour, before I finish work the day before, in order to get here..

 

[dogwatch]

Or alternatively she got 1.4 million students to take a day off school illegally, I doubt many were interested in climate change most would have gone home to use their games machine..

Wrong. She's the poster child for Extinction Rebellion which in the UK has been the biggest civil disobedience movement in decades and has had an significant and likely irreversible effect on the seriousness with with mainstream parties take climate change. It's become pretty much impossible for parties to duck the issue, nobody wants to be seen to be telling millions of kids they are mistaken. As a pragmatist interested in actual solutions I find the impossible demand for zero emissions by 2025 irritating as hell but the effectiveness of the campaign is undeniable. And now she is on the way to the USA. Just possibly, this will get interesting.