Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 01:35:01 PM

Login with username, password and session length

End of the World News (Dose me Up)

Started by Twit 2, February 27, 2019, 06:21:01 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

hummingofevil

Quote from: pancreas on March 17, 2019, 07:48:10 PM
Christ, yes, tax the fucking cunt out of the helicopters, what do you take me for?

I mean total ban on them. And super yachts, super cars and super noodles. All in this together.

chveik

Quote from: hummingofevil on March 17, 2019, 07:38:09 PM
Only if all private jets and helicopters too. The solution to climate change cannot be focused on taxing the poor out of travel.

I really doubt the poor take 20 flights a year.

Quote from: Shoulders?-Stomach! on March 17, 2019, 07:21:57 PM
However, if you have any kids or drive regularly you're basically already out of this game of moral judgement.

it's not a game. some people need to drive a car to go to work, because there aren't any other facilities available in their part of the world.
also, blaming other people that do worst things than you doesn't absolve you from moral judgement.

obviously the super rich, our governments and big companies are the most responsible for the state of the world, but we are rather compliant too.

Cloud

Yet another thread full of sanctimonious twats lobbing stones out of their glass houses

Zetetic

Quote from: pancreas on March 17, 2019, 06:20:52 PM
I can only agree with Z that flights should be taxed very heavily, globally.
Quote from: Shoulders?-Stomach! on March 17, 2019, 07:15:37 PM
How about something slightly more nuanced like incentives to his emissions targets and penalties for non compliance?

Part of what winds me up about air travel is that it's barely even a matter of having to introduce new taxes. Mostly it's a matter of ending exemptions for aviation - VAT, fuel taxation and so on - and hideous amounts of straightforward subsidy (which many levels of government in the UK are guilty of).

Quote from: hummingofevil on March 17, 2019, 07:38:09 PM
The solution to climate change cannot be focused on taxing the poor out of travel.
Sure. One small part of it, however, might be consistently internalising the externalities of different modes of travel and then subsidising to ensure that travel is accessible to all.

But that might not mean flying.

Zetetic


Twit 2

#65
Quote from: Pearly-Dewdrops Drops on March 17, 2019, 07:31:41 PM
Wallace-Wells is describing a very unlikely worst-case scenario. Useful for sparking political change, but no use becoming suicidal over.

Cheer up, the greatest existential threat to human civilization remains (as always) nuclear war.

In my post you quoted I was kind of asking for a refutation not a rejection of the ideas in the book. You seem to be writing another variation on 'It'll probably be fine, mate' wishful thinking. What are your sources/workings?

Quote from: hummingofevil on March 17, 2019, 06:16:18 PM
Just done some calculations and reckon flying 10 times a year to Europe round trips is a little more CO2e than someone doing a load of tumble drying every day which I know my mate with a young baby does AND they flying to Spain on Wednesday. So use that information as you wish.

This doesn't sound right at all. Can you show your workings? Even if someone was tumble drying every day and it took two hours, you're saying 750 hours of using an electrical device = more than 10 flights to 'Europe' (Paris? Istanbul?). My understanding of carbon emissions is that flights put your footprint right the fuck up.

Quote from: Cloud on March 17, 2019, 10:28:14 PM
Yet another thread full of sanctimonious twats lobbing stones out of their glass houses

Seriously? Looks like a normal debate, no one being funny about it so far from where I'm standing. (Although using the thread to tell everyone off is a bit rum, ironically). For my part, I wasn't trying to have a go at Shoulders at all - I have no idea, as I said, what the exact stats are or whether 20 flights = 1 child, or whatever. Which posts in this thread have been sanctimonious?

ZoyzaSorris

People should be rationed to one or two flights a year. Taxation is an important part of this but obviously disproportionately affects the rich less, so we either need to massively reduce inequality or have some from of rationing as well for resource use / environmental issues.

Cloud

Quote from: Twit 2 on March 18, 2019, 06:54:33 AM
Seriously? Looks like a normal debate, no one being funny about it so far from where I'm standing. (Although using the thread to tell everyone off is a bit rum, ironically). For my part, I wasn't trying to have a go at Shoulders at all - I have no idea, as I said, what the exact stats are or whether 20 flights = 1 child, or whatever. Which posts in this thread have been sanctimonious?

Sorry, you're right, I was in a poor mood and being a twat and a bit of a hypocrite

Mostly I'm referring to telling people off for things like taking some arbitrary "too many" number of plane flights.  Admittedly I've not set foot on one since 2013 but still, people have their reasons, maybe they need to for work or to visit relatives, maybe they do even want to see other parts of the world once in a while before they cark it, etc.  Yes sometimes it's objectionably wasteful (I refer back to the stupidity of flying the PM back and forth every few days to shake hands with Junker and have the same conversation with the same outcome) but I wouldn't assume that's always the case.

The way people carry on sometimes, it's almost like they wish everyone (else) would top themselves so they wouldn't be any more of an environmental burden.  I'm assuming those who get narky about other people's choices are also vegan, never drive anywhere (even in an EV; local pollution is improved, but lifetime carbon footprint is arguable), don't have any pets or children, recycle everything, don't have a smartphone, upgrade computer once every 10 years max, and are basically squeaky clean... otherwise as they say "let he who is without sin..."

I just think, no wonder people on this forum are suicidal... if it's not for all the depressing politics, they're being made to feel guilty just for existing, or for their children existing.  Some would, it seems, be very happy to see the total genocide of mankind so that the planet and the sheep and the cows can be free of our terrible cancerous presence, and I can't agree with that at all.  Yes while the scientists work out how to save the world let's try to at least be mindful, don't go on frivolous flights too often (holidays are expensive anyway), eat less meat, drive cleaner cars, walk more, don't let anyone make you feel like a loser for being childless, vote for environmentally conscious governments etc.  But christ.... lighten up people, enjoy life a bit, you're only here once.  I'm not saying have a total disregard or anything like that, but spending your life feeling guilty every time you enjoy something, or trying to make others feel guilty for the same, is far from a fun existence in my eyes.  Let's at least have a life worth hanging onto.

garbed_attic

Quote from: Cloud on March 18, 2019, 09:23:34 AM
The way people carry on sometimes, it's almost like they wish everyone (else) would top themselves so they wouldn't be any more of an environmental burden.  I'm assuming those who get narky about other people's choices are also vegan, never drive anywhere (even in an EV; local pollution is improved, but lifetime carbon footprint is arguable), don't have any pets or children, recycle everything, don't have a smartphone, upgrade computer once every 10 years max, and are basically squeaky clean... otherwise as they say "let he who is without sin..."

This argument is the same as saying because someone has once trod on an ant they can't criticise illegal poachers and big game hunters.

I don't see the point in personally criticising Shoulders - I think governments around the world need to immediate massively limit flights, enforce strict rationing and implement other anti-democratic policies - grim, perhaps, but seen as perfectly acceptable during WWII and in the wake of the Great Depression, both of which were comparatively small issues compared to what is now facing us.

But, that said, some of us do most of the things you've listed! I don't fly, haven't eaten meat or anything containing meat since I was 14 and don't drink milk. I don't have kids or pets and never have done and never intend to (like, again, lots of folks here). I don't drive, I take the bus or train or walk - occasionally my parents will give me a lift if they're already driving somewhere. My electronics are always bought second-hand (from CeX) and I don't have many of them tbh. Not perfect by any means - I'm a citizen of a 1st world country - but, yes, if everyone in America lived like that, we'd be in less of an apocalyptic state.

Realistically I think Britain, America, Europe, much of Asia, Australia, parts of South America, parts of Africa etc. etc. have societies which repeatedly drive home the idea of "You are what you buy and the greatest most precious freedom is the freedom of consumer choice and the freedom of the market". I think if that isn't fundamentally challenged and disrupted, humanity is fucked. I'm pretty pessimistic, but I'm still spending most of my limited free time with XR anyway because I still think there is a moral imperative to fight.

Icehaven

A big meteor entered and exploded in Earth's atmosphere a few months ago, much like the one over Chelyabinsk a few years back only this time it was over the sea so no one noticed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47607696

Apparently though there's usually only a few every century but that's 2 in less than a decade and what with that and Oumuamua I think we're going to get taken out by space junk before any politics or climate change sees us off.


BlodwynPig

Quote from: icehaven on March 18, 2019, 01:31:14 PM
A big meteor entered and exploded in Earth's atmosphere a few months ago, much like the one over Chelyabinsk a few years back only this time it was over the sea so no one noticed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47607696

Apparently though there's usually only a few every century but that's 2 in less than a decade and what with that and Oumuamua I think we're going to get taken out by space junk before any politics or climate change sees us off.

I know Chukka is a bit of a bastard, but I don't think he has the wherewithal to end the human race... humanity maybe

garbed_attic

#71
This is a remarkably sympathetic portrayal of XR from The Financial Times:
https://www.ft.com/content/9bcb1bf8-5b20-11e9-9dde-7aedca0a081a

The comments section is predictably awful in places though...

On a marginally unrelated note, I do find it fascinating and terrifying in equal measure how many libertarian gammon are ready to get a gun and protect their own. I wonder how many people don't rape, torture and murder with impunity only because they're scared of getting caught and whether the percentage amongst baby boomers is any higher than in any other generation idk

I much favour collectivist responses, but part of me is starting to think I should also go on a bunch of survivalist courses and get a lot better at crafting if I want to see my younger siblings avoid slow starvation or worse...

Paul Calf

Quote from: hummingofevil on March 17, 2019, 07:38:09 PM
Only if all private jets and helicopters too. The solution to climate change cannot be focused on taxing the poor out of travel.

It will, though. I mean, you know it will.

Petey Pate

Quote from: gout_pony on April 12, 2019, 05:57:42 PM
This is a remarkably sympathetic portrayal of XR from The Financial Times:
https://www.ft.com/content/9bcb1bf8-5b20-11e9-9dde-7aedca0a081a

Would be interested in reading this but it's behind a paywall.

garbed_attic

Quote from: Petey Pate on April 12, 2019, 07:38:45 PM
Would be interested in reading this but it's behind a paywall.

That's odd as I managed to read it... hmm...

Uncle TechTip

Quote from: gout_pony on April 12, 2019, 09:38:08 PM
That's odd as I managed to read it... hmm...

When this happens do a search on Google for the URL and then click through, because you reached it via Google they show you the whole thing.

Shoulders?-Stomach!

Quote from: ZoyzaSorris on March 18, 2019, 09:05:32 AM
People should be rationed to one or two flights a year. Taxation is an important part of this but obviously disproportionately affects the rich less, so we either need to massively reduce inequality or have some from of rationing as well for resource use / environmental issues.

Is it going to be one or two? Just asking in case I need to I arrange my non-polluting trains and ferry journeys to return home.

Zetetic

A good point, because a largely empty 12-wagon train being pulled by a 1908 Class S 3/6 locomotive burning early-60s-DDR-mined lignite would have similar externalities to a medium-sized aircraft covering the same journey.

(Yes, it's not quite as clear-cut as that. But vast swathes of the European train network is electrified, and supplied from renewable or nuclear (which, yes, has its own issues).)

Twit 2

Quote from: Shoulders?-Stomach! on April 13, 2019, 09:31:53 AM
Is it going to be one or two? Just asking in case I need to I arrange my non-polluting trains and ferry journeys to return home.

If you're still on your gruel diet I reckon you've saved enough carbon credits to take 100 flights a year, leaning out the back tipping a bucket of crude oil into the sea as you go.

katzenjammer

You could pay to offset your flight's carbon emissions


https://www.myclimate.org

Petey Pate

Quote from: Uncle TechTip on April 12, 2019, 10:47:00 PM
When this happens do a search on Google for the URL and then click through, because you reached it via Google they show you the whole thing.

Tried that and it didn't work.

At one point the FT allowed you to read one free article of theirs a day, I'm not sure if they've reneged on that.

Shoulders?-Stomach!

Quote from: Zetetic on April 13, 2019, 10:01:39 AM
A good point, because a largely empty 12-wagon train being pulled by a 1908 Class S 3/6 locomotive burning early-60s-DDR-mined lignite would have similar externalities to a medium-sized aircraft covering the same journey.

(Yes, it's not quite as clear-cut as that. But vast swathes of the European train network is electrified, and supplied from renewable or nuclear (which, yes, has its own issues).)

I don't think I claimed otherwise. Just pointing out that rerouting people into cars, trains and ferries which are themselves not only polluting but massively inconveniencing just to make a point is very dumb and would damage the livelihoods of millions globally.

A big problem of which airline emissions is only one constituent part requires a suite of subtler inter-connected solutions.

I favour ending exemptions, incentivising all involved to cut emissions through R&D and the threat of taxes. I also don't object to discouraging pointless business travel, the insistence on face-to-face meetings that are unnecessary.

However, its important that there is a driver to improve technological development of air travel - if you take that away then we stop progressing. This is unlike reducing the reliance on fossil fuels to create electricity where that is the definition of progress.

Finally, of sentimental but also real value, in my opinion, societies and the individuals within them are not going to become more rounded, more tolerant and more humane by trapping themselves at home. It's important people travel.

"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime."

Zetetic

Göring, there, advocating for air 'travel' IIRC.

I think there's something to be said about the fact that trains and ferries are in large part 'massively inconveniencing' because we've undermined their development (and indeed obliterated routes) by grossly subsidising air travel.

Shoulders?-Stomach!

Quote from: Zetetic on April 13, 2019, 01:02:11 PM
Göring, there, advocating for air 'travel' IIRC.

I think there's something to be said about the fact that trains and ferries are in large part 'massively inconveniencing' because we've undermined their development (and indeed obliterated routes) by grossly subsidising air travel.

This is migrating from you having made reasonable points to grindingly pursuing the matter to absurdity.

1) Even if we have lost out on the ability to transport thousands of people across water at the same speed as a plane Was it ever likely we would have opted to. where by plane you can simply drop down to where you need to be?

I don't think so. You focus your energies on improving what is the most convenient way of traveling.

2) Which routes have been obliterated due to airline travel? Airline travel largely serves major destinations - nearly all of which have train lines, but often ones that don't.

3) Train travel has suffered because of the advent of the car far more than the plane.


Zetetic

On 3 - yes, certainly for local routes. Not long-distance routes, I suggest, certainly in the last few decades in Europe.

On 2 - many the UK to Europe, other than the cross-Channel ferry routes. Night trains across Europe. These have largely suffered in the face of air travel, and the failure of governments to support co-ordination that would have made them substantially more convenient in combination.

(Edit: There's a wider point here about how air travel has also contributed to a failure to reopen routes that, yes, many decades ago suffered in the face of road travel and other policies.)

I'm prepared to accept that some inconvenience may be the price of living better more broadly. (As in, I actually have accepted this and do so.)

Zetetic

But, if advocating government intervention to improve rail and ferry services is going to far, I'm prepared to retreat to my milder policies of ending all effective subsidy for air travel and retroactive stochastic corporal punishment for aircraft abusers.

garbed_attic

I bet if I get arrested for protesting I'm going to be like Alan Partridge when he's interrogated by the police in This Time :(

garbed_attic

Nearly time for the Extinction Rebellion...

Anyone else coming?