Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Carbon Conscious Travel
Reload this Page >

Letís let airlines know that climate concerns are changing our flying habits

Letís let airlines know that climate concerns are changing our flying habits

Old Dec 18, 19, 1:15 am
  #16  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Programs: UA GS>1K>Nothing; DL GM 2MM; AS 75K>Nothing
Posts: 8,411
We have two choices,

1. Dramatically reduce consumption of everything (including air travel and concrete), or...
2. Switch to nuclear power

Number 1 ain't going to happen so anyone who is not pushing hard for 2, either doesn't believe in climate change or doesn't believe in facts and logic..... and that includes everyone talking about hybrid cars, train travel, aviation bio-fuels, and wooden keys for hotel rooms.
5khours is offline  
Old Dec 18, 19, 12:24 pm
  #17  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 396
Originally Posted by WilcoRoger View Post
However, if we stopped aviation tomorrow (reductio ad absurdum) that would delay global warming by a week.
A logical corollary of your argument: "I'm going to go home and kick some puppies. Some people find this morally objectionable, but I don't worry about my own personal puppy-kicking because there's frankly so much animal abuse going on in the world that even if my own contribution to animal violence is 10 times the world average, my own contribution is not statistically significant from a global perspective so why should I refrain if I get even one iota of personal hedonistic pleasure from it? I would rather not think about alternative activities to my puppy-kicking because it's something that I've become quite used to, almost a tradition really, and I'm too old to think in flexible terms about this activity now."

The rest of your post frankly is largely rather silly fallacies such as a false dichotomy of completely stopping global warming (I agree, implausible) and adaptation (humans likely won't go extinct, but the costs of addressing most global warming is by most estimates actually far cheaper than the likely eventual costs).

A far more cogent strategy that isn't mired in the sort of nihilistic/supremely cynical quasi-religion often trotted out by global warming, "realists:"
1. Reduce emissions where possible
2. Human and environmental adaptation where necessary.

The more you do of number 1, the less of number 2 you have to pay for and the less of the non-human planet that we'll destroy in the process.

Reducing our flying in first class and getting airlines to focus intensely on new technologies is actually a very cheap and effective way to do number 1.
dickerso is offline  
Old Dec 18, 19, 4:30 pm
  #18  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Programs: UA GS>1K>Nothing; DL GM 2MM; AS 75K>Nothing
Posts: 8,411
Anybody who believes that incremental individual reductions of carbon emissions are going to help ameliorate the problem is living in fantasy land and by encouraging others in that false belief makes the problem much worse by distracting focus from solutions that will work. But if advocating ineffective virtue signaling action makes you feel good.... what the heck.... let the planet burn.
5khours is offline  
Old Dec 18, 19, 4:47 pm
  #19  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 396
Originally Posted by 5khours View Post
incremental individual reductions...distracting focus from solutions that will work.
The natural conclusion of your argument: systemic change is needed. Therefore, we should all individually endeavor to damage the environment as much as possible so that others develop the political will to mitigate the disasters that we're causing.

I think that's silly.

Please explain how an argument using your logic would apply to environmental problems based on the "tragedy of the commons," such as shark-fin soup or elephant ivory. Does my restraining from shark-fin soup make the government less likely to protect the animals? Does my individually not contributing to shark-fin soup demand cause more sharks to be harvested? Obviously not.

Instead, individual and political action are synergistic. Those doing the most to individually reduce carbon are also doing the most in the political realm.

Last edited by dickerso; Dec 18, 19 at 4:49 pm Reason: Changd paragraph order
dickerso is offline  
Old Dec 18, 19, 6:22 pm
  #20  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Programs: UA GS>1K>Nothing; DL GM 2MM; AS 75K>Nothing
Posts: 8,411
Kumbaya!
5khours is offline  
Old Dec 18, 19, 6:33 pm
  #21  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 396
Originally Posted by 5khours View Post
Kumbaya!
Agree.
dickerso is offline  
Old Dec 18, 19, 9:44 pm
  #22  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Programs: UA GS>1K>Nothing; DL GM 2MM; AS 75K>Nothing
Posts: 8,411
Originally Posted by dickerso View Post
Agree.
Quoting from Jonestown?
5khours is offline  
Old Dec 19, 19, 1:29 am
  #23  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: HEL
Programs: lots of shiny metal cards
Posts: 8,981
Originally Posted by dickerso View Post
A logical corollary of your argument: "I'm going to go home and kick some puppies. Some people find this morally objectionable, but I don't worry about my own personal puppy-kicking because there's frankly so much animal abuse going on in the world that even if my own contribution to animal violence is 10 times the world average, my own contribution is not statistically significant from a global perspective so why should I refrain if I get even one iota of personal hedonistic pleasure from it? I would rather not think about alternative activities to my puppy-kicking because it's something that I've become quite used to, almost a tradition really, and I'm too old to think in flexible terms about this activity now."

The rest of your post frankly is largely rather silly fallacies such as a false dichotomy of completely stopping global warming (I agree, implausible) and adaptation (humans likely won't go extinct, but the costs of addressing most global warming is by most estimates actually far cheaper than the likely eventual costs).

A far more cogent strategy that isn't mired in the sort of nihilistic/supremely cynical quasi-religion often trotted out by global warming, "realists:"
1. Reduce emissions where possible
2. Human and environmental adaptation where necessary.

The more you do of number 1, the less of number 2 you have to pay for and the less of the non-human planet that we'll destroy in the process.

Reducing our flying in first class and getting airlines to focus intensely on new technologies is actually a very cheap and effective way to do number 1.
Taking your puppy kicking parabole further - if the general aim is to reduce overall puppy suffering, should we go after one dude kicking a puppy every other month, or rather on dudes who torture thousands of puppies each day, every day?

I can wholeheartedly agree with your two-pronged approach (reduce & adapt), the devil is, as usual, in the details. If you believe the doomsday prophecies of St Greta, it's already game over, so maybe we should stop throwing good money after bad and put more efforts into the adaptation side (while not forgetting the reduction side either).

Reducing our flying is an easy but rather pointless excercise if you really want to reduce emission and not just feel virtuous. You may call me silly if you wish, but again, a total stop on aviation would put off global warming by a week.
WilcoRoger is offline  
Old Dec 19, 19, 3:26 pm
  #24  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 396
Originally Posted by WilcoRoger View Post
If the general aim is to reduce overall puppy suffering...
Then I would personally stop kicking puppies.

If you really want to reduce emission and not just feel virtuous...
Given that you psyche is not unduly taxed by the labors of trying to reduce your own environmental impact, would you care to share some of the steps that you've taken in the political realm to address this issue?

Last edited by dickerso; Dec 19, 19 at 3:27 pm Reason: formatting
dickerso is offline  
Old Dec 20, 19, 5:00 am
  #25  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: HEL
Programs: lots of shiny metal cards
Posts: 8,981
Getting personal, aren't you?

I really don't give much/any thoughts of my personal environmental (and even less "climate") impact - there are many more personal and political issues much more important than that, even if the loudly shouting choir would make you believe otherwise. Given that worse case scenarios predict that in a 100 years my country's climate will be that of Germany's today, I'm not unduly worried.

But here's one - our family owns only one car and actually the same car for the last 7 years now and we both use public transportation for our commuting. How about the environmental impact of NOT having to manufacture another (or another two) vehicle for our personal use every 2-3 years?

Here's another one for environmental impact - we recycle all (90%+) the paper, cardboard, metal, glass, hazardous and organic waste in our household. Can you say the same?

But again - if you feel rightous and virtous by doing meaningless gestures, just go ahead and feel good about yourself.
WilcoRoger is offline  
Old Dec 21, 19, 10:41 am
  #26  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 396
Originally Posted by WilcoRoger View Post
I really don't give much/any thoughts of my personal environmental...impact...
Cool story.

It's as if you've shown up to the local gardening club's seminar on growing orchids and you won't stop shouting, "hey man, because of the exponential growth of computing power, it's far more likely that the universe of experience we're all claiming to undergo (not that it can be conclusively proven to me that any of you actually exist) is actually a simulation in a computer rather than the actual universe. Therefore, all of your attempts to grow prize-winning orchids are futile given the likely underlying truth of our universe of which the orchid-growing makes no attempt to address. WAKE UP!" And you have little insight to why the local gardening club finds you rather annoying.

In spite of your claimed insouciance to this issue, you seem to spend substantial effort coming to a community of people that have decided to address this issue rather than do nothing in the face of almost certain enormous ecological, economic, and human devastation and throw out all sorts of silly contradictory rationalizations: "the problem is too overwhelming to address.. the problem isn't really that severe..."
dickerso is offline  
Old Dec 21, 19, 3:18 pm
  #27  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: HEL
Programs: lots of shiny metal cards
Posts: 8,981
Well, you prefer an echo chamber instead of facing different opinions than your own... but hey, just write that strongly worded letter to your favorite airline and world will be saved in a jiffy.
WilcoRoger is offline  
Old Dec 22, 19, 12:58 pm
  #28  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 396
Originally Posted by WilcoRoger View Post
Well, you prefer an echo chamber...
Not trying to mini-mod here, I just think your contributions have been rather unhelpful.

If you wish to make the philosophical argument that people bear no moral culpability for their own actions in the face of very large (global scale) problems, uhhh, interesting, but perhaps a philosophy forum would be a more fruitful place to conduct such an argument.

Conversely, if you wish to argue about the validity or scope of global warming impacts, ridiculous, but perhaps a science forum would be better suited.
dickerso is offline  
Old Dec 23, 19, 9:40 am
  #29  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: HEL
Programs: lots of shiny metal cards
Posts: 8,981
How so unhelpful? I encourage you to write a sternly worded letter to AS and feel good about yourself - you made what you can to battle climate change.
WilcoRoger is offline  
Old Dec 23, 19, 10:19 am
  #30  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Programs: UA GS>1K>Nothing; DL GM 2MM; AS 75K>Nothing
Posts: 8,411
1. The analogy with puppies is a false equivalence. Unlike puppy kicking, carbon emissions are only bad in the aggregate (and only amenable to solutions in the aggregate.)

2. Individual action (even by many people) will have zero impact.

3. The problem and the solution are not at all overwhelming.

4. However, IMHO, anyone promoting individual action (especially the trivial ones bandied about in this forum) will make the problem worse by distracting focus from real practical solutions and by deceiving people into thinking that feel good fluff is a panacea. (It's hard to know where this fits on the axis of evil and ignorance.)
5khours is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: