Feels less like he's being threatened because of his stance on flying, and more like because he's already been out there a month longer than he was supposed to be, time he could've used to travel back more environmentally friendly, and they want him back now.
this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2023
115 points (97.5% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5393 readers
190 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The extension was due to security threats, which presumably relate to travel options.
Well tough balls. If You wanted to have a person back sooner, they should have recalled them sooner. Seems like a mess of a scheduling and I'm not informed enough to make any conclusions. All I can say I have travelled in cargo ships, and I loved it!
I don’t think flying is the root of the problem.
But the IfW Kiel is allegedly insisting approval for his trip ran out on September 10 and he must return immediately by plane.
He should have been back weeks ago. They want him back quickly, not over a month from now. He’s already proven himself to be unreliable and unprofessional, so I’m not surprised the institute isn’t being more flexible than they already have been. He could have avoided flying by planning ahead. Jobs come with responsibilities.
He’s already been given several weeks of leeway, which is a LOT more than most of us could expect from our employers.
I know flights emit a lot, but surely the emissions related to sustaining a man for 35 days (food preparation and shipment, water purification, living space cleaning and powering) outweigh that?
You'd be surprised. Long trips literally produce tons.
The emissions of this trip, if every passenger flew economy, is >2 ton CO2 per person.
The annual emission of a eu citizen is 4 to 7 ton a year so for a month that's 350kg, given that he is not living on eu standards it's quite safe to take the lower bound. The co2 of hitching on cargo ships and trucks is neglectabel, but if he has to catch a bus for most land travel, we can set it to 500kg max.
Taking the plane emissions at the minimum bound and the alternative maximal, it's still 3x less. And personal emissions I think we could reduce by a lot in the next 10 years with greener agriculture, industry and just consuming less. Plane travel will not improve drastically the coming 20 years
Presumably you'd need to compare that to his regular consumption for those 35 days, so marginally, it might really only be the water purification and a little extra weight of food.
It would kinda be interesting to see a detailed breakdown of the comparison.
A person eats and drinks every day, regardless of being on a journey, or stationary. If he sourced locally along the trip, there's a good chance his emissions were lower, since Germany has higher per capita emissions than most countries, roughly estimated.
But even if he brought all the supplies from Germany, that would only increase transportation emissions slightly. Emissions for the goods themselves remained equal, wether they are consumed at home or elsewhere.
Probably not no, flying really does emit a shit ton
“Threatened with the sack”
Don’t threaten me with a good time
I get where he's coming from but that plane is going to fly it's route whether he's on it or not.
I think it's mainly two reasons: Consciousness, and trying to make the world a better place.
People similarly refuse to participate in other things which are done anyways. Think about veggies, Nestle, refusing to work in certain industries or for certain employers, reddit blackout, fair trade products.
People abstain from what they deem wrong to have no part in it. And to use the power they have to not support what they deem wrong, maybe even shed light on it and inspire others.
When enough people do the same, it absolutely can have real world consequences. Change has to start somewhere.
I also refuse to fly, but my commute isn't 16000km either.
Very good points and well written.
That may be true for one particular flight but if all the people who fly only because "the plane is going anyway" stopped, I'm sure that would partially empty those planes enough that airlines would consider reducing the flights' frequency. But if anyone knows studies/arguments implying the opposite, I'd be very interested to hear them.
TIL planes fly empty if no one buys a ticket
H A N N A ?