It doesn't make sense to frame the issue as a matter of guilt, and neither is it relevant to look at the relative emissions of others.
The simple matter is that we have a carbon budget per person on Earth. If you're above that, you should voluntarily reduce yourself below it.
If you (we) don't, more aggressive mechanisms will eventually force us all to.
Fly as much as you want, but you must capture or offset the emissions.
This applies equally to all direct or indirect usage of fossil fuels. Driving, heating, goods, whatever.
It's basic mathematics at this point. Guilt and shame are one potential social mechanism for getting people to realise what they must do. Taxation is another. People dying out is another. Etc. I suppose in that lens it's probably the lesser of the evils.
But it's very much indirect, the shame is a sort of evolved potential solution rather than anything "real".
There's one thing I disagree with: the notion that we should voluntarily stay "within our share" in order to not be forced to do it.
I tried for years to avoid flying. I guess I stayed on the ground for about a decade It was a royal pain, because e.g. visiting the UK (where I have close relatives) from Norway is really, really painful by surface travel. It shouldn't be: it's close, after all, and there used to be ferries. But they all got closed down due to cheap flights (more recently than you'd think).
"Voluntarily" reducing your carbon footprint will usually run into this obstacle. It means taking a lot of costs and inconvenience on yourself, which wouldn't have been there if we'd been forced (or rather, used our collective decision mechanisms to decide) to share these costs fairly. Concretely in my case, there might have been a ferry from Bergen again.
That's why I welcome legislation. Even "oppressive" legislation that I wouldn't go for myself, like banning meat. I wouldn't go for it, but I'd respect it if it was passed, because I realize we have to make these decisions together, consciously, rather than individually and according to our personal guilt levels.
This is what's missing. Thunberg and co are raging at the politicians, but politicians are probably more willing to accept big changes than the public is. They're as bold as the public allows them to.
We need to get together and establish what our duties are. Maybe we'll let some get a bigger share of the carbon budget. Maybe we'll let the rich buy themselves a bigger share of those resources, just like they currently get to buy themselves a bigger share of everything else. But whatever we decide: the important thing is not your personal decisions, but that you accept that contra Bush the elder, your way of life IS up for negotiation.
The biggest impact on climate is industry.
No eating meat, or not flying is a drop in the bucket.
I think meat industry was estimated at 3%.
Politicians are picked by big business and that's why there is a resistance to deal with the issue systematically.
Also sad truth is that N America and Europe are reducing their footprint while China and India are happily growing on heaps of burning plastics.
This is global problem and we don't have tools to deal with it globally. Give money to China to reduce the emissions, they will take it and put up a front of them doing something. The horrible truth is that we can barely do anything about the global warning. All we are really doing is watch this tragic play called "The tragedy of the commons" slowly playing out as we seep coke through paper straw from a plastic cup.
The thing to remember here is that NA and EU can afford to reduce their emissions since they consume Chinese/Indian products in the first place. If more things had to be manufactured in-house, the local western emissions would be higher.
So on top of that, China and India (and other developing nations) need to be properly incentivized to switch to more friendly technologies. China saw this with their massive coal usage causing intense smog and moving quite a bit to solar (note: haven't checked what the current status of that is so if it's changed I could be wrong)
Well, it's certainly the case that voluntarily performing these actions increases market demand.
Consider for example the enormous proliferation of vegan food. I don't know about Norway, but Sweden has stuff everywhere, in rural village supermarkets for example.
It certainly helps that a lot of activists skew towards the higher income end of the spectrum.
I offset all my flights now (I probably fly about three round trips per year). My wife and I recently went to Greece (from Toronto), which were two trips of 10+ hours and IIRC almost 7 tons of carbon emissions. I purchased $170 CAD of offsets from a Canadian nonprofit (https://www.less.ca/). Not a perfect solution, but it’s something. I’m also considering calculating our family’s total yearly carbon emissions and offsetting all of them.
But here’s the thing: why aren’t offsets just baked into the price of all air travel? It would not be a huge increase in ticket prices. I would guess perhaps 10, maybe 15%. We need to change the idea that we have some god given right to externalize our environmental impacts.
I've always been somewhat skeptical of the offsets. It isn't as though there is a company (or non-profit) that is sucking an equivalent amount of CO2 out of the air. Planting trees only goes so far. I guess that generating funds to pursue other reductions is worthwhile, but it doesn't really undo the damage from the CO2 that was emitted in the first place.
The cynic in me thinks it is simply a mechanism for people to buy away their guilt without actually accomplishing anything.
why aren’t offsets just baked into the price of all air travel?
Sounds like a carbon tax to me, which I am completely in favour of. If the proceeds are used to develop renewable energy or subsidise electric car purchase or other such things, so much the better. Call it a carrot and stick approach.
> undo the damage from the CO2 that was emitted in the first place.
CO2 is fungible: one CO2 molecule is the same as another. And global warming is a global problem, not a local one so yes, removing one from location A at the same time as creating one at location B is very similar in effects to just not creating it in the first place.
Air travel is one of the few exceptions: altitude has a large effect in the damage caused by a CO2 molecule.
And of course it's not just CO2 that's being reduced when you limit CO2: most of the other pollutants emitted by combustion have very local effects.
> > why aren’t offsets just baked into the price of all air travel?
> Sounds like a carbon tax to me, which I am completely in favour of.
If the carbon tax is below the cost of sequestration a carbon tax is not fully effective: it's still cheaper to pollute than to sequester or offset. A carbon tax above $100 per tonne or so will have the effect you desire: everybody will either reduce or will pay to offset/sequester rather than pay the tax. And if nobody pays, there are no proceeds.
> What I am skeptical of is that the offsets really are preventing an equivalent amount of CO2 from being released elsewhere.
I think you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater here.
Your concern is quite valid and I would bet that there are a lot of offsets with questionable accounting.
However offsets & sequestration are an essential tool to fight climate change. We can replace gas cars with electric cars, but there are many industries which have not yet developed viable alternatives. To dismiss sequestration means we must either dismantle those industries or give up on fighting climate change.
You can argue for effective auditing and accounting of offsets, but please do not kneecap effective mechanisms for climate change mitigation.
I didn't dismiss sequestration. I expressed doubt that purchasing carbon offsets actually accomplishes what is being advertised (who is actually doing sequestration?). Meanwhile, people are led to believe that it does no harm to fly (or whatever), because they bought offsets.
The harm they are doing is substantially less than flying without offsets.
Sure, but what if the alternative is not flying? If the offsets make someone feel ok about flying when they otherwise wouldn't, they could be a large net negative.
It probably helps to not speak in generalities here.
If you pay a person $5 to replace one of their light bulbs with LED bulbs then you have really prevented some CO2 from being released.
I agree that it needs to be easier to navigate the landscape of offsetting programs and that a lot of businesses are simply buying feel-good certificates.
Emission offset is just a way for rich people to absolve their sins. If you release CO2 in the atmosphere that was previously sequestered in the ground it's out. Sure you can plant some trees, and they'll bind the carbon as they grow, but what happens when they get old and die? Bacteria and fungi release the carbon back into the air.
> but what happens when they get old and die? Bacteria and fungi release the carbon back into the air.
And at that point the forest is in steady state: growth of new trees offsets the decay of old ones.
Planting trees is only a temporary solution; you only get to count the credits once. Eventually much of the world will be covered in forests and different solutions will be needed.
But it's an extremely valuable temporary solution. More forests are a good thing, and hopefully by then electric airplanes will be a cheaper option than offsets.
When I state that people must capture their emissions - I mean precisely that, as a simple matter of mathematics, the matter released must be captured and sequestered.
Offsetting is a different matter entirely and is more of a transitionary exercise, because we ultimately need to hit net zero, for which offsetting is not a solution.
The mechanics of either of those are done are left as an exercise for the reader.
On geological timescales all of this stuff is quite hard. For example, you could populate massive forests, fell the trees and just stack up massive piles of wood. Assuming all of that is net carbon negative - what if there's a massive fire in the next thousand years? Oops.
That doesn’t sound like a well-informed opinion to me. Have you looked at rigorously certified carbon offset and capture programs? It is not just treeplanting.
I don't see anything about removing CO2 from the atmosphere, only spending money to prevent CO2 and methane being emitted elsewhere. While those projects are obviously good, they don't negate any fossil CO2 anyone else emits.
It’s morally absurd, no one has suggested Jeffrey Epstein or Bill Cosby could donate money to sex abuse victims and then what they did would suddenly be acceptable.
It’s one thing to be wealthy and claim global warming is the most serious threat to life on earth, and fly normal commercial planes with other people. It’s another to zoom around in a private jet to your personal vacation spot and board someone’s private yacht for a week. If you really wanted to be terrible, you could be like Sir Richard Branson and launch a cruise line.
The objective of the Fredericton Region Solid Waste Commission (FRSWC) Landfill Gas Capture and Flare project is to capture and flare the landfill gas produced at the landfill located in Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada, to further avoid emissions of methane to the atmosphere.
The Fredericton Region Solid Waste Commission (FRSWC) Landfill began operations in 1986, covers 120 hectares of area and has over 1 million tons of waste in place. The landfill is currently accepting 75,000 tonnes per year of municipal solid waste and has the capacity to accept waste for the next 45 years.
The New Brunswick province where the project is located has no regulatory requirements mandating the capture or flaring of landfill gas. Hence, the business as usual practice prior to the implementation of the project activity was complete release of Landfill Gas (LFG) into the atmosphere.
The project activity is defined as the construction of 26 vertical wells, installation of 2,100 meters of pipeline and a flare for the purpose of LFG capture and methane destruction. A blower was installed to create a slight vacuum to draw the LFG through the pipeline and capped wells to the flare. The flare is an enclosed drum flare with high destruction efficiency to combust LFG and prevents direct methane emissions into the atmosphere.
The forecasted amount of GHG emission reductions from the project is estimated to be 241,585 tonnes of CO2 equivalents (tCO2e) during the period of 8th December 2006 to 31st December 2010.
------------
You may disagree that this is an effective project, but I am more likely to trust an independent auditor (that's who produces these reports) that outlines the scientific basis in terms I can understand, that make sense, and that clearly identify the environmental impact.
To me the biggest question is, would this project have existed regardless of whether or not I purchased offsets? I choose not to take this attitude of helplessness. I choose to fund, with my own money, scientifically verified and audited projects like this as opposed to doing nothing.
By doing so, I believe that I mitigate and possibly eliminate the negative environmental impact of the choices I make to travel. Then I can focus on the positive impacts: The trip I took benefited me personally and broadened my world view. It improved my relationship with my wife. We contributed a little bit to the economy of Greece. Etc.
> To me the biggest question is, would this project have existed regardless of whether or not I purchased offsets? I choose not to take this attitude of helplessness. I choose to fund, with my own money, scientifically verified and audited projects like this as opposed to doing nothing.
Sounds like repackaged charity. Giving money to good causes is fine, but that doesn't mean your emissions are not contributing to climate change.
Is it ok to expose children to cancer hazards like second hand smoking if you buy cancer offsets in the form of funding cancer research? Wouldn't it be better to not smoke around kids and still give money to charity?
It is literally impossible to not emit carbon in the modern world.
I don't fly, but I still donate and pay for for carbon capture and offset, because it's unavoidable. The laptop I'm typing on to you right now would not be carbon neutral otherwise, for example.
Reduction is better where practicable, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I'm not suggesting you shouldn't give money to charity, including the ones that work to minimize climate change. I'm suggesting that your laptop isn't carbon neutral at all. It's a matter of definition I guess, but fossil carbon was emitted in the production and transportation if it.
The only thing that matters from a mathematical perspective is the net position.
If I buy a laptop that embodies, say, 300kg of emitted carbon, and then use the money I earn from working on it to capture 300kg (e.g. by planting trees and felling the wood, or by the more advanced less proven techniques) then the overall position is neutral.
Obviously the situation would be better if the 300kg were captured without the laptop ever being produced, but that's not a realistic description of how humans operate. Even if I had infinite money anyway, I must eat, I have some basic entertainment needs, I'll get depressed and die if I just sit in my house all day and never do anything, etc.
My personal goal is to end each year with a net negative position. Have to at least beat topping yourself, right? </dark>
The problem is that there's no short term downside to using more than your share, and most people won't live to see the longer term effects of their decisions. People tend to maximize their own utility, and cutting back typically is the opposite.
I don't think we should go the opposite direction, though, and legislate our way out by, for example, banning popular polluting products like meat and cars. Instead, I think we should just add in the long term costs so short term decisions are appropriately adjusted. I believe strongly that a carbon tax (or a more general pollution tax to cover things like methane) can significantly improve things generally without any bans. If you increase the price of jet fuel, airline ticket prices go up, which discourages use of airlines and encourages more efficient alternatives, like trains or telecommuting. It can touch pretty much every negative aspect of society without the complexity and subjectivity of deciding which products are bad enough to get banned. Companies that pollute will be forced to innovate or lose to greener competitors without all the complexity of juggling subsidies.
I don't know why we haven't seriously presented a workable carbon tax. One side of politics chooses to ignore the problem, while the other side chases subsidies and regulation. I think taxing sources of carbon and other greenhouse gases makes a ton of sense.
> I don't know why we haven't seriously presented a workable carbon tax.
Two countries with highly visible carbon taxes are France and Canada. You've seen the video of the yellow vest protests in France. A carbon tax is highly regressive, affecting the poor more than the rich.
In Canada they did it "properly", making it progressive through an offset. 80% of Canadians get more money from the carbon tax offset than they pay out into the carbon tax. The government is likely going to fall (or at best drop into minority status) in the election on Monday. The carbon tax is one of the key reasons for their fall.
I am positive we will be able to find technological solutions, but I am very skeptical if we can find social solutions. Generating society consensus on how to react on change might be the most important todo.
> you should voluntarily reduce yourself below it.
I don't think you can reasonably expect people to do those things voluntarily
The problem is that politically it's very difficult to reduce emissions because it often means it reduce their comfort, so legally it's complicated.
Shaming people and making them feel guilty is a good alternative and a first step, because there are no legal means to make good progress, like a carbon tax.
Unfortunately many of the offsetting strategies also require additional natural resources which puts more and more pressure on the whole system. It's also not really fair that access to resources then ends up determining how free you are (e.g. in terms of mobility) to a large extent.
Project Wren is one, I reckon they'd put you at about 10 tonnes per year or so, that's a very rough order of magnitude estimate by me though.
Regarding budget; that's something that would have to be decided in a vague sense in order to enact a carbon tax.
On a personal level you can just decide. Personally I donate and buy enough offset/capture that I go negative, because I can, and because my career means that I have enough money as long as I calibrate my lifestyle expectations appropriately.
The simple matter is that we have a carbon budget per person on Earth. If you're above that, you should voluntarily reduce yourself below it.
If you (we) don't, more aggressive mechanisms will eventually force us all to.
Fly as much as you want, but you must capture or offset the emissions.
This applies equally to all direct or indirect usage of fossil fuels. Driving, heating, goods, whatever.
It's basic mathematics at this point. Guilt and shame are one potential social mechanism for getting people to realise what they must do. Taxation is another. People dying out is another. Etc. I suppose in that lens it's probably the lesser of the evils.
But it's very much indirect, the shame is a sort of evolved potential solution rather than anything "real".