6 ms·

Nah you don't get to decide if someone flies their craft purely for enjoyment. Doesn't matter if it "contributes" to global warming. It's not a needle mover at

Nah you don't get to decide if someone flies their craft purely for enjoyment. Doesn't matter if it "contributes" to global warming. It's not a needle mover at all and this is just about control. It's a slippery slope. I will not tolerate this slippery slope at all. These bureacrats will just have to be satisfied with enacting real meaningful changes where they matter - not on regulating people's free choice and free exercise and how easily and quickly they can move around their homeland via electric planes. This is all one big slippery slope towards tyrants regulating every aspect of an individual's life in the name of carbon emissions. You don't get to decide what flights are a waste of fuel. You also don't get to evaluate and decide how someone else should spend their hard-earned money. If there were no more flights at all, of any kind, that would represent 4% of emissions. That's for the entire planet's worth of flights. This change here won't make any difference at all to emissions, but they'll definitely empower bureacrats who are salivating at every prospect of making themselves more powerful at everyone else's expense.

nologic01 3y ago
> that would represent 4% of emissions you can split the 100% of total emissions into 25 pieces, apply your impeccable "logic" for freedom of choice to spend hard-earned money (somehow its never ill-gotten money) on all of them and burn the planet to your ideological satisfaction. the only slippery slope here is the normalization of the "do-nothing because it inconveniences me" mentality. your freedom of action ends where it conflicts with the collective survival and that is i) not a new thing and ii) is not negotiable. the details of what to change and how are up for discussion and critique, but talk of "tyrants" and "salivating bureaucrats" indicates you will not be the one contributing anything meaningful to the discussion
- prottog 3y ago
  > with the collective survival Deaths from climate-related disasters have been falling in absolute numbers even as the world population grows. In fact, in the 50 years from 1970 to 2019, humanity more than doubled in number while climate-related deaths decreased threefold. This is due to the increasing ability of people in developing countries to better harness and control their natural environment enabled by industrialization driven by fossil fuels. All of human progress has been about higher per capita energy expenditure. To stop that now is to condemn the global poor to remain in poverty. We'll know for sure in another fifty to a hundred years, but my bet is that the bigger threat to humanity's collective survival will be from the increasing centralization of power at the hands of the few that things like "fighting climate change" require. [0]: https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=10989 https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=10989
  - nologic01 3y ago
    its funny how the "global poor" enter a discussion about whether or not to allow short-haul flights (and private jets) in the developed world, largely discretionary consumption choices that have workable and less-polluting substitutes measuring the impact of the fossil-fuel induced climate change as some direct death count is incredibly short-sighted if not amoral. large parts of the world already show significant impact from desertification. people in severely stressed areas will move, peacefully or forcefully. the result will be (civil) wars and mass migration and we already see this in the middle east. the entire modern political system of countries and borders is predicated on stable climate conditions. > centralization of power at the hands of the few that's a red herring if there ever was one. why should the sustainability transition be performed via centralized tyranny? If people stop spreading misinformation at the behest of vested interests and we develop reliable measures of environmental impacts a democratic society is perfectly capable to make the rational choices
    - ThorsBane 3y ago
      > largely discretionary consumption choices that have workable and less-polluting substitutes You don't get to decide what is discretionary consumption. No hall monitor will ever be elevated to such a role over this planet. Do you actually want workable less-polluting solutions? Then be against this ban and for electric airplanes which will solve this problem very soon. > large parts of the world already show significant impact from desertification. If you got rid of all flights globally, this would not be changing as a result. There are also massive reforestation projects undergoing worldwide and those will continue to gain traction as more land frees up for reclamation by nature and park preserves. > why should the sustainability transition be performed via centralized tyranny? If people stop spreading misinformation at the behest of vested interests and we develop reliable measures of environmental impacts a democratic society is perfectly capable to make the rational choices They exaggerate the extent of climate woes in order to cement their own power and luxury. That's most of what it is. The real efforts against climate corruption are in renewables and clean transport. Progress is already at breakneck speed and still climbing on these fronts. It's the same group of people who were insisting that we need to lockdown and drastically change every aspect of society because of the pandemic. Now mountains of evidence are emerging that not only were the lockdowns mostly unnecessary, they may have been actively harmful more than good. A democratic society making these changes on its own without over-centralization is as simple a matter as people adhering to the United States Constitution and working together at the community level to build more solar, clean up roads, install EV charging stations, etc. That's already happening. So why is it necessary for France to top-down ban short-haul flights in the name of emissions when that action will hurt quality of life without moving the needle? It's because their motives are impure. Some of them are tyrants-in-waiting.
- ThorsBane 3y ago
  [flagged]
sidewndr46 3y ago
This argument doesn't really hold up given current law. I'm prohibited from removing all kinds of emissions devices on my personal vehicles driven on my own personal property all the time under US Federal law. Why should someone be allowed to have emissions just because they are flying a plane?
- oceanplexian 3y ago
  There are some practical reasons but safety is certainly one. Unlike cars, the lifespan of an airplane is usually measured in decades. Not saying it's impossible, but you can't demand we redesign airplanes overnight to add a bunch of weight and complexity for a fleet that was mostly built in the 1950s-1970s. I would also note, I am a shade tree mechanic and work on a lot of cars, the #1 source of failures in modern cars is almost always complicated emissions control systems, so it's a harder problem than it looks like.
- ThorsBane 3y ago
  It's moreso that nobody is in a position to start dictating to someone else what they can or can't do on account of emissions. That would be a dystopia and a bunch of bureacrats citing "collective survival" to ban things and stunt everyone else while they recline in luxury. That is what history shows. What does removing emissions devices on your personal vehicles have to do with whether or not someone wants to fly? Advocate for better devices and less invasive devices that do not add costs. That's a separate concern and subject from whether or not someone can fly. All your argument would do is just justify The Next Ban with flimsy justifications.
  - sidewndr46 3y ago
    "start dictating" - this is literally how emissions laws work in the US. If I am allowed to impose unlimited externalities on others for my own personal gain then why would I ever choose not to?

nologic01 3y ago

> that would represent 4% of emissions you can split the 100% of total emissions into 25 pieces, apply your impeccable "logic" for freedom of choice to spend hard-earned money (somehow its never ill-gotten money) on all of them and burn the planet to your ideological satisfaction. the only slippery slope here is the normalization of the "do-nothing because it inconveniences me" mentality. your freedom of action ends where it conflicts with the collective survival and that is i) not a new thing and ii) is not negotiable. the details of what to change and how are up for discussion and critique, but talk of "tyrants" and "salivating bureaucrats" indicates you will not be the one contributing anything meaningful to the discussion

prottog 3y ago
> with the collective survival Deaths from climate-related disasters have been falling in absolute numbers even as the world population grows. In fact, in the 50 years from 1970 to 2019, humanity more than doubled in number while climate-related deaths decreased threefold. This is due to the increasing ability of people in developing countries to better harness and control their natural environment enabled by industrialization driven by fossil fuels. All of human progress has been about higher per capita energy expenditure. To stop that now is to condemn the global poor to remain in poverty. We'll know for sure in another fifty to a hundred years, but my bet is that the bigger threat to humanity's collective survival will be from the increasing centralization of power at the hands of the few that things like "fighting climate change" require. [0]: https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=10989 https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=10989
- nologic01 3y ago
  its funny how the "global poor" enter a discussion about whether or not to allow short-haul flights (and private jets) in the developed world, largely discretionary consumption choices that have workable and less-polluting substitutes measuring the impact of the fossil-fuel induced climate change as some direct death count is incredibly short-sighted if not amoral. large parts of the world already show significant impact from desertification. people in severely stressed areas will move, peacefully or forcefully. the result will be (civil) wars and mass migration and we already see this in the middle east. the entire modern political system of countries and borders is predicated on stable climate conditions. > centralization of power at the hands of the few that's a red herring if there ever was one. why should the sustainability transition be performed via centralized tyranny? If people stop spreading misinformation at the behest of vested interests and we develop reliable measures of environmental impacts a democratic society is perfectly capable to make the rational choices
  - ThorsBane 3y ago
    > largely discretionary consumption choices that have workable and less-polluting substitutes You don't get to decide what is discretionary consumption. No hall monitor will ever be elevated to such a role over this planet. Do you actually want workable less-polluting solutions? Then be against this ban and for electric airplanes which will solve this problem very soon. > large parts of the world already show significant impact from desertification. If you got rid of all flights globally, this would not be changing as a result. There are also massive reforestation projects undergoing worldwide and those will continue to gain traction as more land frees up for reclamation by nature and park preserves. > why should the sustainability transition be performed via centralized tyranny? If people stop spreading misinformation at the behest of vested interests and we develop reliable measures of environmental impacts a democratic society is perfectly capable to make the rational choices They exaggerate the extent of climate woes in order to cement their own power and luxury. That's most of what it is. The real efforts against climate corruption are in renewables and clean transport. Progress is already at breakneck speed and still climbing on these fronts. It's the same group of people who were insisting that we need to lockdown and drastically change every aspect of society because of the pandemic. Now mountains of evidence are emerging that not only were the lockdowns mostly unnecessary, they may have been actively harmful more than good. A democratic society making these changes on its own without over-centralization is as simple a matter as people adhering to the United States Constitution and working together at the community level to build more solar, clean up roads, install EV charging stations, etc. That's already happening. So why is it necessary for France to top-down ban short-haul flights in the name of emissions when that action will hurt quality of life without moving the needle? It's because their motives are impure. Some of them are tyrants-in-waiting.
ThorsBane 3y ago
[flagged]

sidewndr46 3y ago

This argument doesn't really hold up given current law. I'm prohibited from removing all kinds of emissions devices on my personal vehicles driven on my own personal property all the time under US Federal law. Why should someone be allowed to have emissions just because they are flying a plane?

oceanplexian 3y ago
There are some practical reasons but safety is certainly one. Unlike cars, the lifespan of an airplane is usually measured in decades. Not saying it's impossible, but you can't demand we redesign airplanes overnight to add a bunch of weight and complexity for a fleet that was mostly built in the 1950s-1970s. I would also note, I am a shade tree mechanic and work on a lot of cars, the #1 source of failures in modern cars is almost always complicated emissions control systems, so it's a harder problem than it looks like.
ThorsBane 3y ago
It's moreso that nobody is in a position to start dictating to someone else what they can or can't do on account of emissions. That would be a dystopia and a bunch of bureacrats citing "collective survival" to ban things and stunt everyone else while they recline in luxury. That is what history shows. What does removing emissions devices on your personal vehicles have to do with whether or not someone wants to fly? Advocate for better devices and less invasive devices that do not add costs. That's a separate concern and subject from whether or not someone can fly. All your argument would do is just justify The Next Ban with flimsy justifications.
- sidewndr46 3y ago
  "start dictating" - this is literally how emissions laws work in the US. If I am allowed to impose unlimited externalities on others for my own personal gain then why would I ever choose not to?