Except we're not demi-Gods, able to decide what to do at will with the entire planet. Pursuing some serious efforts in one area can't be turned down simply because there's something else that could be done in another area.
On the contrary, the rational way of solving a complex problem that cannot be addressed entirely is to break it down into smaller ones, estimate their individual cost/impact/risk and start with the most cost-effective options.
In fact, people who actively shame others for eating meat, having vacations, and raising kids, are doing exactly that. Except, instead of optimizing the ecological impact, they optimize their own emotional return through gaining influence over others, similar to religious missionaries.
I think, for everyone who actually wants to solve the climate change problem, being honest about their goals could be a good starting point.
It might be some sort of at-first-glance rational thing to do, certainly not very efficient.
There are a lot of people on earth, working in parallel or asynchronously should be a lot more efficient than fixing problems synchronously one-by-one and reassessing in between?
I used to think this way when I launched version 1.0 of my first software product. Just toss it out there and let people asynchronously find it, as long as it's great to use, right?
5 years and about 10 major releases later, I can confidently tell you that convincing a large group of people to do anything, even it if pays off great for them, is a long and time-consuming process, that is often more labor-intense and risky than the engineering part.
Exactly correct, which is why wealthy nations converting away from fossil fuel electricity production to nuclear baseload generation and renewables for peak load is critical. It’s the only thing which is feasible, has clear outcomes, and is obvious once the problem is broken down.
Unfortunately being anti-nuclear is more emotionally fulfilling for people.
Only if you don't like the taste in the first place.
Not being overweight and counting calories is another topic, but restraining yourself to a highly processed bean paste instead of grilling a steak in your backyard is a very questionable thing in terms of cost/impact.
Well, then design a decent paper straw, figure out production/sales/logistics and sell it to me at a cost that won't make a huge difference, since I don't care whether I spent $5 or $15 per year on straws. And if you say it's not realistic, than pick a realistic goal and start working on it.
If we continue expanding air travel it will take our whole carbon budget within 30 years (possibly more). This means we need everything else to go to zero. It seems unlikely that we can achieve that.
I don't think we can exclude air travel just so a few people can continue jetting around the world.
Makes sense to use slower, low energy freight instead of deliverin cargo ASAP only for it to sit idle in warehouses afterwards. All that speed with the emission penalty is wasteful as the article describes.
Barges are cheap and slow too but going down river and letting consistent currents do the heavy lifting with a certain regimented cargo means haste becomes irrelevant. Going against the current (or wind) then generates the energy penalty, especially with returning freight.
A back-of-the-envelope calculation tells me that the efficiency of a powered airship is about the same as modern airplanes. Switching truck freight to airships would use an order of magnitude more fuel.
Higher, as long as the airship for not have to go fast and can use air currents mostly like any old balloon. It can go almost arbitrarily slow, as long as the weather is good and there is no time pressure.
The main efficiency losses in airplanes are wind resistance and takeoff/landing... An airplane cannot go arbitrarily slow or it loses lift.
According to industry sources, airships are about 80% more efficient.
Plus as fuel space efficiency and weight is less of a problem, they can use different fuel sources for the engines, including methane or hydrogen, and electric engines too.
Eliminating coal generation overnight would be...impractical, but if it drove up electrical costs, that would send market signals to bring more renewables, utility battery storage, and natural gas generation online.
NREL did some research about 5 years ago showing you could move ~75% of the US light vehicle fleet over to electric with no additional generation capacity, so the generation slack is there.
We should just introduce a tax for pollutioners. Big enough to make going green an economical adventage.
Problem is all of the world politicians are a corrupt scum. And this is the only reason we didnt do that already. We have means to stop polluting. We just choose not to stop.
EVs are a great fit for when demand is low at night (and you’ve got to run the generator regardless), or when there’s excessive production from renewables and you don’t want to curtail and waste that power.
You're right, air travel is just a drop on a hot plate, and is by far the cleanest way of transporting hundreds of people in (relative) comfort over vast distances. Try taking a Tesla from SF to Amsterdam.
But eliminating all coal plants in the world is not feasible in the short term. Germany tried it a while back. Turns out that some days are too dark to catch enough sunlight. Turns out that sometimes the wind doesn't blow.
Then you'd have to restart the coal plants again because they are reliable sources of energy.
Or we should consider going nuclear. Which makes perfect sense in regions like Europe where there is hardly any danger of earth quakes and tsunamis.
But Europe has bad memories of that because of outdated tech in eastern Europe going haywire.
It'll take another generation or so to get to the point where we can shut down coal plants.
> But Europe has bad memories of that because of outdated tech in eastern Europe going haywire.
Opposition to nuclear plants is much older than Chernobyl's catastrophe; it started at least in the early 70s, with the big protests in Wyhl, Germany.
And frankly, the way some western European states have been dealing with the plants we do have is not reassuring. Maybe the distribution of iodine pills in the German towns bordering Belgium was overkill, but it shows that those nuclear states aren't taking the concerns seriously enough.
That’s hundreds of thousands of flights a day.
We could just eliminate all coal electric plants in the world and make a real impact. Then use that cleaner energy to power our electric cars.