Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Frequent flyers are definitely a big problem, but would be challenging to police/regulate. This will be a tough nut to crack.

As noted, some do this as a dull part of their job, not for pleasure. Politicians also often use this method of travel frequently for business (whether they need to or not). Many times these are also grey combinations of business/pleasure.

We could use a simple frequent flyer levy against just pleasure travel, but as the human experience shows such creatures would just reclassify their trips as business or some other loophole.
 
Frequent flyers are definitely a big problem, but would be challenging to police/regulate. This will be a tough nut to crack.

As noted, some do this as a dull part of their job, not for pleasure. Politicians also often use this method of travel frequently for business (whether they need to or not). Many times these are also grey combinations of business/pleasure.

We could use a simple frequent flyer levy against just pleasure travel, but as the human experience shows such creatures would just reclassify their trips as business or some other loophole.

Again, I could make the same argument about cars, which are often used for leisure with no specific destination.

It's worth noting that air travel is at least 50% more energy-efficient than travel by automobile. If anything, we should be flying more lol
 

New energy policies are urgently needed to put countries on the path to net zero greenhouse gas emissions, the world’s leading energy economist has warned, as economies are rapidly gearing up for a return to fossil fuel use instead of forging a green recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic. Most of the world’s biggest economies now have long-term goals of reaching net zero by mid-century, but few have the policies required to meet those goals, said Fatih Birol, the executive director of the International Energy Agency (IEA).New energy policies are urgently needed to put countries on the path to net zero greenhouse gas emissions, the world’s leading energy economist has warned, as economies are rapidly gearing up for a return to fossil fuel use instead of forging a green recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic. Most of the world’s biggest economies now have long-term goals of reaching net zero by mid-century, but few have the policies required to meet those goals, said Fatih Birol, the executive director of the International Energy Agency (IEA).
He urged governments to support clean energy and technology such as electric vehicles, and make fossil fuels less economically attractive. “Governments must provide clear signals to investors around the world that investing in dirty energy will mean a greater risk of losing money. This unmistakable signal needs to be given by policymakers to regulators, investors and others,” he said.
 
Frequent flyers are definitely a big problem, but would be challenging to police/regulate. This will be a tough nut to crack.

As noted, some do this as a dull part of their job, not for pleasure. Politicians also often use this method of travel frequently for business (whether they need to or not). Many times these are also grey combinations of business/pleasure.

We could use a simple frequent flyer levy against just pleasure travel, but as the human experience shows such creatures would just reclassify their trips as business or some other loophole.
It does seem needlessly complicated and easy to game. Much simpler to just add a carbon tax to all air travel fuel.
 

WASHINGTON — President Biden will unveil an infrastructure plan on Wednesday whose $2 trillion price tag would translate into 20,000 miles of rebuilt roads, repairs to the 10 most economically important bridges in the country, the elimination of lead pipes and service lines from the nation’s water supplies and a long list of other projects intended to create millions of jobs in the short run and strengthen American competitiveness in the long run.

Biden administration officials said the proposal, which they detailed in a 25-page briefing paper and which Mr. Biden will discuss in an afternoon speech in Pittsburgh, would also accelerate the fight against climate change by hastening the shift to new, cleaner energy sources, and would help promote racial equity in the economy.

1617214221466.png


 

WASHINGTON — President Biden will unveil an infrastructure plan on Wednesday whose $2 trillion price tag would translate into 20,000 miles of rebuilt roads, repairs to the 10 most economically important bridges in the country, the elimination of lead pipes and service lines from the nation’s water supplies and a long list of other projects intended to create millions of jobs in the short run and strengthen American competitiveness in the long run.

Biden administration officials said the proposal, which they detailed in a 25-page briefing paper and which Mr. Biden will discuss in an afternoon speech in Pittsburgh, would also accelerate the fight against climate change by hastening the shift to new, cleaner energy sources, and would help promote racial equity in the economy.

View attachment 649630

Item #3 on this chart is reason why BEV stocks such as one associated with this forum are doing well today. :)
 
It does seem needlessly complicated and easy to game. Much simpler to just add a carbon tax to all air travel fuel.

Air travel is already being gamed. It's cheaper to book a trip that spans a weekend, since business travelers generally travel during the week, and are not as price-sensitive as those traveling for personal reasons.

This tree-hugging Texas liberal loves a good carbon tax as much as the next Socialist, but taxing jet fuel will to little to discourage it's use, since there is no alternative to it. It will raise airfare generally, which will slightly curb demand, but at a higher burden on low-income earners.

Build me a few hydrogen-powered bullet trains, and then we'll talk ;)
 
Air travel is already being gamed. It's cheaper to book a trip that spans a weekend, since business travelers generally travel during the week, and are not as price-sensitive as those traveling for personal reasons.

This tree-hugging Texas liberal loves a good carbon tax as much as the next Socialist, but taxing jet fuel will to little to discourage it's use, since there is no alternative to it. It will raise airfare generally, which will slightly curb demand, but at a higher burden on low-income earners.

Build me a few hydrogen-powered bullet trains, and then we'll talk ;)

I think we just need to accept the fact that air travel needs to be one of those things we just don't do unless we REALLY have to. I haven't been on a plane in 7 years and have no plans to get on one ever again.
 
Air travel is already being gamed. It's cheaper to book a trip that spans a weekend, since business travelers generally travel during the week, and are not as price-sensitive as those traveling for personal reasons.

This tree-hugging Texas liberal loves a good carbon tax as much as the next Socialist, but taxing jet fuel will to little to discourage it's use, since there is no alternative to it. It will raise airfare generally, which will slightly curb demand, but at a higher burden on low-income earners.

Build me a few hydrogen-powered bullet trains, and then we'll talk ;)
Taxing fuel will raise the price of travel which will discourage "frivolous" travel. Exactly the result we want.
(Please spare me your crocodile tears for low income people.)
 
I think we just need to accept the fact that air travel needs to be one of those things we just don't do unless we REALLY have to. I haven't been on a plane in 7 years and have no plans to get on one ever again.

Maybe I'm not picking up the vibe that y'all are putting down, but I'd say we're already at the point where no one travels by air unless they REALLY have to. If I need to be in another city, then I need to be in another city, and frankly air travel is reasonably carbon-friendly compared to other modes.

I believe the way to attack this problem is to find better modes of transportation, instead of telling people to "travel less" or ask them to pay more just for the sake of paying more. You can't cajole people into a carbon-free future, you need to entice them.

Wanna convince someone to ditch ICE vehicles? Let them drive your Tesla for 5 minutes. Wanna reduce carbon-based air travel? Then show them something better (dirigibles? lol).

Air travel accounts for less than 3% of global CO2 output. Even cows contribute more to greenhouse emissions!
 
Taxing fuel will raise the price of travel which will discourage "frivolous" travel. Exactly the result we want.
(Please spare me your crocodile tears for low income people.)

Yes, low-income people. Weddings, funerals, colleges, all sorts of personal reasons for long-distance travel, regardless of means. Taxing the fuel adds a fixed cost to each seat, and is thus regressive.
 
Maybe I'm not picking up the vibe that y'all are putting down, but I'd say we're already at the point where no one travels by air unless they REALLY have to. If I need to be in another city, then I need to be in another city, and frankly air travel is reasonably carbon-friendly compared to other modes.

I guess it depends on your definition of the word 'need'. I have a friend that spends a good chunk of her income flying to every Sounders away game. Probably clocks ~100k miles/yr. Necessity?

Wasn't that long ago that if family moved to another continent the only contact you got was a letter maybe twice a year. Now we have Skype and email and FB and texting AND we fly there for all the holidays... maybe we just need to settle for the first 4 and accept that in person gathering sadly might only happened once a decade instead of 3 times a year.
 
Yes, low-income people. Weddings, funerals, colleges, all sorts of personal reasons for long-distance travel, regardless of means. Taxing the fuel adds a fixed cost to each seat, and is thus regressive.
I think we need to face facts. Air travel pollutes. We need to discourage air travel.
Back BC (before covid) every time I got on a plane it was full of "non-essential" travelers. People just going somewhere for the week/weekend for fun. If people want to pollute, they need to pay. Yes, it's regressive but so is gas tax, sales tax, etc.
 
Guys, look, I'm not the one you need to convince. Changing course on our carbon consumption means setting public policy, and that means changing hearts and minds of basically everyone. This effort needs to have more carrot than stick, or it will fail.

I think air travel will be a bit like smoking. Sometimes all you have is the stick. We just need to make it culturally unacceptable.

Not that anyone can spend 2 weeks on a sailboat but Greta did give us a good rhetorical stick. It is kinda pathetic when someone chooses a 4 hour flight over a 20 hour drive when a teenage girl was willing to spend weeks on a boat to avoid a 12 hour flight... if you can't afford the 40 hours for the round trip you can't afford the trip... it's that simple.
 
Last edited:
Guys, look, I'm not the one you need to convince. Changing course on our carbon consumption means setting public policy, and that means changing hearts and minds of basically everyone. This effort needs to have more carrot than stick, or it will fail.
Hearts and minds are overwhelmingly in favor of restricting carbon consumption. The problem is that the polluting corporations control public policy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ZsoZso and nwdiver
Again, I could make the same argument about cars, which are often used for leisure with no specific destination.

It's worth noting that air travel is at least 50% more energy-efficient than travel by automobile. If anything, we should be flying more lol
IIRC, reading on this years ago, they compared something like a full plane of coach seating to a single commuter in an average mpg ICE vehicle.

In reality many travel the way our family does - full vehicle (Tesla in our case) of 4 passengers, charged starting on ~100% renewables and thereafter during trips on one of the cleanest grids. We haven't given up plane travel completely, but acknowledge that it does real harm and there is a moral obligation to come up with some serious mitigation.