this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2023
75 points (98.7% liked)

World News

38188 readers
1978 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 10 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That’ll definitely save the world.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Considering aviation is 2.5% of global CO2 emissions, you could get rid of all the aviation emissions and still be very far off from saving anything.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

And yet they are part of the obvious low hanging fruit for reducing emissions

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Are they obvious? If they account for 2.5%, shouldn't the focus be on something that doesn't produce an emotional response (i.e. planes burn so much fuel! They bad for environment!) But is a bigger contributor to polution?

Ships come to mind. Biggest 5 polute as much as all cars on earth. Yet car electrification is brough on constantly in the discourse, when using bunker fuel on ships is met wirh silence

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

They are obvious because they are rarely irreplaceable. We can live without mass tourism and fast deliveries.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I mean, we can also live with the 2.5% polution they cause

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Not really. People in developed countries need to divide their emissions by approximately ten times. Every little bit helps. And we should start with the easy ones.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Oh no, it's such a low reduction! Might as well do nothing then.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

I’m not saying “do nothing”. I’m saying efforts are better spent elsewhere as they’ll have much more dramatic effect.

Air travel should be addressed after massive emitters like industrial sources. Otherwise we’re going to greatly disrupt the lives of normal people trying to see their grandma for very little benefit.