Climate Change/Mass Extinction Megathread

[crazy canuck]

I don't know. That would only make sense if it is cheap.

But it might be cheap, I don't know.

It might also be more pleasant than a plane if you can move around and look at the views and do things during your trip.

Why would it have to be cheap.  I would be willing to pay a non cheap price to get to Seattle faster than driving.  Going city centre to city centre and not having to go through airports has its perks.

Except it still goes through the air (thus over people and property), so would undoubtedly hit a massive barrier of red-tape, bureaucracy, and security limitations, no matter where they take off from.

Agitators that like to bring explosives onto enclosed aerial vehicles ruin things for everybody. 

We have seaplane flights that go inner harbour to inner harbour.  I am not sure what the difference would be.  Btw, if you have a chance to take one of those flights, it is highly recommended - very scenic.  And that would also be a huge attraction for the airships.

[Valmy]

The part you are missing is the Vancouver-Seattle trip would be faster than driving and about the same time as flying once you factor in the fact you dont have to make the drive to and from the airport.

So on your theory that time is money (which isnt really true but that is another topic) they could charge a premium.

edit: another time you probably should have read the link before expressing a view on what is proposed in the link 

I read it. Those are all assumptions you are presenting, that if correct would make it worthwhile. Of course Vancouver and Seattle were also not the only locations mentioned in the article and I never said anything specifically about just them.

[crazy canuck]

The part you are missing is the Vancouver-Seattle trip would be faster than driving and about the same time as flying once you factor in the fact you dont have to make the drive to and from the airport.

So on your theory that time is money (which isnt really true but that is another topic) they could charge a premium.

edit: another time you probably should have read the link before expressing a view on what is proposed in the link 

I read it. Those are all assumptions you are presenting, that if correct would make it worthwhile. Of course Vancouver and Seattle were also not the only locations mentioned in the article and I never said anything specifically about just them.

Valmy the article states those things.  They are not my assumptions.  Don't go full internet asshat on me.  I was talking about the Seattle Vancouver Run.  You disagreed with my post.

[Maladict]

Yes?

I feel like we've had this debate before.  You can't tackle climate change by just going after pipelines and oil companies.  The demand for petroleum will still exist.  You have to go after the demand for petroleum - switch to alternate forms of heating, electricity, transportation, etc.

Hence the second part of the ruling. Although that can't be enforced as much.

Well, it can be once when they go after all of the other companies in the production chains. The judge basically ruled that all companies need to take their responsibility, independent of government regulations. Simply complying with legal limits may not be good enough.

[Tonitrus]

Except it still goes through the air (thus over people and property), so would undoubtedly hit a massive barrier of red-tape, bureaucracy, and security limitations, no matter where they take off from.

Agitators that like to bring explosives onto enclosed aerial vehicles ruin things for everybody. 

Sure - but practicalities aside, it could have a dock on top of the Space Needle!

That would be the problem. 

The guvmint would not be able to help itself but to mess up the entire process...TSA would demand a security checkpoint in the Needle, and the atrocious lines that already exist  (well, pre-COVID anyway) just to go up the elevators would get even worse. 

Not to mention crap like a "security/safety exclusion zone" around the Needle...Seattle Center already has tons of foot traffic all around that area...all you need is one accident and the entire concept goes tits up.

[Tonitrus]

I was even thinking of the Hindenburg disaster as a comparison (because of that lovely utility tower in the foreground  )...what is really amazing about that event, especially taking in account the follow-on impact, is how many survivors there were from it.

[Valmy]

Valmy the article states those things.  They are not my assumptions.  Don't go full internet asshat on me.  I was talking about the Seattle Vancouver Run.

Oh for fuck sake dude. I said those were assumptions, not your assumptions.

You disagreed with my post.

When did I disagree with any of your posts? I posted something, you asked for clarification, which I provided. Then you started attacking my reading comprehension. I don't recall ever disagreeing with anything you said, except for the reading comprehension part.

[Jacob]

That would be the problem. 

The guvmint would not be able to help itself but to mess up the entire process...TSA would demand a security checkpoint in the Needle, and the atrocious lines that already exist  (well, pre-COVID anyway) just to go up the elevators would get even worse. 

Not to mention crap like a "security/safety exclusion zone" around the Needle...Seattle Center already has tons of foot traffic all around that area...all you need is one accident and the entire concept goes tits up.

Customs/ Immigration/ TSA on the harbour to harbour flight between Vancouver and Seattle are orders of magnitude better than those at the airport and for cars at the border.

If the checks for the airships are similar to those for the train or better, then that'll be a big advantage for the airships compared to driving or flying via the major airport.

The real competition on the Vancouver - Seattle line would be the train and the float planes, not driving or major airport flights I think.

[Barrister]

Yes?

I feel like we've had this debate before.  You can't tackle climate change by just going after pipelines and oil companies.  The demand for petroleum will still exist.  You have to go after the demand for petroleum - switch to alternate forms of heating, electricity, transportation, etc.

Hence the second part of the ruling. Although that can't be enforced as much.

Well, it can be once when they go after all of the other companies in the production chains. The judge basically ruled that all companies need to take their responsibility, independent of government regulations. Simply complying with legal limits may not be good enough.

YOu can't just wave a magic wand and order the economy to "reduce CO2 emissions".  There's a whole series of hard policy choices that need to be made by governments.

[Jacob]

You can't just wave a magic wand and order the economy to "reduce CO2 emissions".  There's a whole series of hard policy choices that need to be made by governments.

Are those choices not being made in this case?

[Valmy]

YOu can't just wave a magic wand and order the economy to "reduce CO2 emissions".  There's a whole series of hard policy choices that need to be made by governments.

Well I do find it amusing we keep revolving foreign policy and war around securing fossil fuel supplies while providing huge subsidies for fossil fuel companies on one hand, while giving them trouble on the other to reduce CO2. Either support fossil fuels or don't and let them sink or swim. Our policies make no sense.

[Tonitrus]

That would be the problem. 

The guvmint would not be able to help itself but to mess up the entire process...TSA would demand a security checkpoint in the Needle, and the atrocious lines that already exist  (well, pre-COVID anyway) just to go up the elevators would get even worse. 

Not to mention crap like a "security/safety exclusion zone" around the Needle...Seattle Center already has tons of foot traffic all around that area...all you need is one accident and the entire concept goes tits up.

Customs/ Immigration/ TSA on the harbour to harbour flight between Vancouver and Seattle are orders of magnitude better than those at the airport and for cars at the border.

I believe it...TSA (and the very few foreign equivalents I have personal experience with) is often pretty good when operating at a small location or on a small scale.

This concept would have to remain so if the above were to remain true.

But all that aside, I think the concept is very cool (I love air travel) and would certainly consider a longer, scenic, airship ride over a car/train/regular cattle-car airplane. 

[Maladict]

Yes?

I feel like we've had this debate before.  You can't tackle climate change by just going after pipelines and oil companies.  The demand for petroleum will still exist.  You have to go after the demand for petroleum - switch to alternate forms of heating, electricity, transportation, etc.

Hence the second part of the ruling. Although that can't be enforced as much.

Well, it can be once when they go after all of the other companies in the production chains. The judge basically ruled that all companies need to take their responsibility, independent of government regulations. Simply complying with legal limits may not be good enough.

YOu can't just wave a magic wand and order the economy to "reduce CO2 emissions".  There's a whole series of hard policy choices that need to be made by governments.

Why is that? The company has complete freedom to choose how to cut their emissions, as long as they do it. Which is in line with the Paris agreement.

And the government has been ordered to do likewise by the same court.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_Netherlands_v._Urgenda_Foundation

I mean, I'm not happy about the prospect of courts ordering the entire country to get on with it. But since the government and the large corporations keep dragging their feet, and if this is what it takes to get it done, then that's fine by me.

[Berkut]

Yes?

I feel like we've had this debate before.  You can't tackle climate change by just going after pipelines and oil companies.  The demand for petroleum will still exist.  You have to go after the demand for petroleum - switch to alternate forms of heating, electricity, transportation, etc.

Hence the second part of the ruling. Although that can't be enforced as much.

Well, it can be once when they go after all of the other companies in the production chains. The judge basically ruled that all companies need to take their responsibility, independent of government regulations. Simply complying with legal limits may not be good enough.

YOu can't just wave a magic wand and order the economy to "reduce CO2 emissions".  There's a whole series of hard policy choices that need to be made by governments.

Why is that? The company has complete freedom to choose how to cut their emissions, as long as they do it. Which is in line with the Paris agreement.

And the government has been ordered to do likewise by the same court.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_Netherlands_v._Urgenda_Foundation

I mean, I'm not happy about the prospect of courts ordering the entire country to get on with it. But since the government and the large corporations keep dragging their feet, and if this is what it takes to get it done, then that's fine by me.

Because a company isn't in any position to make the hard choices necessary. They are a for profit business, and their desire to make a profit will always be their primary motivation.

So demanding that they "do something" without specifying what they ought to be doing is going to result in a shitty outcome, almost by definition. They will end up doing whatever it is that meets some interpeted letter of the law (or not meeting it, but surmising that the cost of not meeting it is less then the cost of actually doing something) while trying to protect their bottom line.

You need to state, government, to define the constraints under which they are expected to operate, or to create the proper financial incentives to promote the desired behavior, then let the for profit businesses figure out how to make money under that new reality.

[Maladict]

Because a company isn't in any position to make the hard choices necessary. They are a for profit business, and their desire to make a profit will always be their primary motivation.

So demanding that they "do something" without specifying what they ought to be doing is going to result in a shitty outcome, almost by definition. They will end up doing whatever it is that meets some interpeted letter of the law (or not meeting it, but surmising that the cost of not meeting it is less then the cost of actually doing something) while trying to protect their bottom line.

You need to state, government, to define the constraints under which they are expected to operate, or to create the proper financial incentives to promote the desired behavior, then let the for profit businesses figure out how to make money under that new reality.

The government has done that, in the climate agreement it made with Shell and other companies in 2019.

And the court has not ruled Shell to be in breach of the agreement, but ruled that Shell's plans to reach their goals are insufficient and they have to come up with something better and more concrete.