Frequent flyers are the most responsible for aviation's climate impact

[Berkut]

THis is definitely something we are thinking about, and me in particular. The company I work for is in Minneapolis. Pre-covid, with my role, I was planning on travelling to Minneapolis once a month for about 10 days each time.

Now? Maybe once a quarter once things return to normal.

[The Larch]

Is it true that air travel amounts for 4% of global emissions?

2.4% globally, 3.8% in the EU according to the latest data available from before the pandemic. It's the 2nd largest source from transportation after road vehicles, and is one of the fastest growing ones (4-5% annually since 2010), reaching 1 billion CO2 tonnes in 2018 globally. If it was a single country it'd be in the Top 10 of worst offenders, between Japan and Germany.

In other words, is it fair to say, that all of this matters little to nothing outside the context of ensuring air travel is de-crowded for the benefit of the upper middle class and above?

It is not, but feel free to keep your prejudices showing and not reading what is posted.

[Berkut]

In other words, is it fair to say, that all of this matters little to nothing outside the context of ensuring air travel is de-crowded for the benefit of the upper middle class and above?

It is not, but feel free to keep your prejudices showing and not reading what is posted.

He raises a good point.

So often when it comes to climate change, the focus seems to be on things that don't really matter all that much.

Lets look at some numbers from the US EPA. These are global estimates.

Transportation is 28% of all greenhouse gas emissions. Air transport is 9% of that. So that means that air transport contributes about 2.5% of total global greenhouse emissions.

If FF account for 50% of all passenger flights, then that means 1.2% of all global emissions. Actually, it is less than that, since that 9% of air transport also includes freight, which is not broken out separately. Lets leave that aside for now, but note that means that 1.2& is the upper bound.

Lets say we could cut that in half with a targetted tax. That won't reduce that from 1.2% to half that, since cutting the number of passengers in half of a particular type will not cut the number of flights in half, since the airlines still have to service the routes. So AT BEST, we could trim something like less than one half of one percent of global emissions by going after those bastards who are flying around all the time.

That seems like something that is maybe worth looking at, but focusing on it seems to be missing the larger picture, badly. In fact, it strikes me as the kind of thing where we are targetting a group we can all feel good about sticking it to, rather then actually thinking about what is the most effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in 50% range we need to be looking at.

Also note that greenhouse gas emissions for air travel has stayed largely flat, at least compared to other sectors.

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions

[Berkut]

Another example of this is focusing on stupid shit like straws. We have to switch to biodegradable straw to save the oceans!

What percentage of plastic in the ocean comes from fucking straws????? How about we talk about the real problems, instead of the stupid shit that makes people feel like they are doing something, even when they are not.

Sometimes I wonder if half of these "campaigns" are funded by the companies that are the real problem, as a way to distract. But that way goes madness....

[DGuller]

Another example of this is focusing on stupid shit like straws. We have to switch to biodegradable straw to save the oceans!

What percentage of plastic in the ocean comes from fucking straws????? How about we talk about the real problems, instead of the stupid shit that makes people feel like they are doing something, even when they are not.

Sometimes I wonder if half of these "campaigns" are funded by the companies that are the real problem, as a way to distract. But that way goes madness....

I think the simple plausible explanation is usually the correct one.  I think many people, even the ones who should know better, are prone to making decisions that make them feel good about solving a problem, rather than trying to pragmatically understand whether they are effectively solving a problem.  I personally also don't view this shortcoming very charitably; it's another manifestation of people's selfishness sabotaging societal good.  In this case people are prioritizing their feel-good as opposed to their material gain at the expense of society, but the mindset is the same.

[The Larch]

He raises a good point.

Can't give a detailed answer now as I must go offline for a while, but I'll come back to this later today. Let's say that while I agree with part of your reasoning, I disagree with the conclusion you draw.

[Zanza]

That seems like something that is maybe worth looking at, but focusing on it seems to be missing the larger picture, badly. In fact, it strikes me as the kind of thing where we are targetting a group we can all feel good about sticking it to, rather then actually thinking about what is the most effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in 50% range we need to be looking at.

The opening article of the thread only presents frequent flying as something worth looking at. It does not suggest focussing on it and makes no claim that this the biggest issue to solve regarding greenhouse gases.

When looking at flights as something to address, frequent flyers seem to be the obvious target. We don't want to take away the annual vacation flight from normal people after all. I don't think it is "sticking it to a group", but rather the most democratic approach. Make sure that all can still fly occasionally by limiting the heaviest users.

[Admiral Yi]

When looking at flights as something to address, frequent flyers seem to be the obvious target. We don't want to take away the annual vacation flight from normal people after all. I don't think it is "sticking it to a group", but rather the most democratic approach. Make sure that all can still fly occasionally by limiting the heaviest users.

We aren't "taking away" the annual vacation.  We're making the cost reflect the harm caused.

[Berkut]

Make sure that all can still fly occasionally

So if we don't tax the heaviest users, the alternative is to ban all air travel?

by limiting the heaviest users.

I thought the goal was to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions.

[Zanza]

We all agree on the goal, namely reducing greenhouse gases and that less flights can contribute a bit towards that, even if it is overall just a small percentage of all emissions.

We also seem to all agree on pricing the external effects flying causes by taxing this external effect. Classical liberal economic approach I guess.

The only question open seems to be whether it should be a flat price, i.e per air mile regardless of how many air miles you have per year, or progressive, i.e. growing prices for more air miles, in order to make frequent flyers pay more than occasional flyers. Both seem to be legitimate approaches.

[DGuller]

We also seem to all agree on pricing the external effects flying causes by taxing this external effect. Classical liberal economic approach I guess.

The only question open seems to be whether it should be a flat price, i.e per air mile regardless of how many air miles you have per year, or progressive, i.e. growing prices for more air miles, in order to make frequent flyers pay more than occasional flyers. Both seem to be legitimate approaches.

What is legitimate about the second approach?  Does our planet decide to warm up more from one ton of CO2 emitted due to a business traveler as opposed to one ton of CO2 emitted due to someone flying in for Christmas?

[Admiral Yi]

The logic of progressivity seems to be based on the premise that 1 vacation a year is a necessity, whereas traveling a quillion miles a year is a luxury.

The problem is that if you start carving out "necessities" you end up taxing a much smaller base.  Is a daily 30 minute commute each way a necessity?  Is heating and cooling a median sized detached single family home a necessity?

The second is that business travel is not a luxury.  I would be miserable traveling that much.  I think you said the same Zanza.

[HVC]

a flat tax would disproportionately effect lower income earners, would it not? i see it doing so in two ways; one, lower income earners (which i'm using synonymously with less frequent flyers, which may be wrong) are flying for vacation or leisure time, so taxing them at an equal rate isn't equivalent to taxing a business traveler since a business travel isn't going for vacation or leisure. secondly if in a flat tax a lower income person would pay that tax personally, while a business travelers cost is covered by work. if you want to use taxes to limit travel a higher rate for a business traveler would make sense because companies have a higher threshold for costs incurred.

[Admiral Yi]

a flat tax would disproportionately effect lower income earners, would it not?

Well no, it should affect them flatly.

[Syt]

a flat tax would disproportionately effect lower income earners, would it not?

Well no, it should affect them flatly.

He means: it would cost them a higher % share of their income than a rich person.