Thread by @giulio_mattioli

Is this "fully automated luxury whataboutism"?

A thread on misconceptions around flying and its climate impact

https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1379741247347294208

Playing down the significance of an emission sector because it's just 2 or 3% is *never* a good idea - see paper & thread here

https://twitter.com/giulio_mattioli/status/1278788155391565831

It is *particularly inappropriate* to use that argument for air travel, for many reasons.

1. Air travel is incredibly *carbon intensive*. Perhaps the most carbon intensive way in which to use your time. If you fly, it probably accounts for a very large share of your emissions

How can flying be so carbon intensive, and still just 3% of emissions overall?

Simples - because *very few people do it*. Air travel is incredibly unequally distributed.

[you would expect self-proclaimed 'communists' to be sensitive to that BTW!]

So saying: "it's just 3% we shouldn't worry to much about it" it's a bit like saying: "I know peeing in the swimming pool is bad but as most people except me & my mates don't do it, urine will not be more than 3% of the pool, what's the big deal?"

2. The concern about air travel is not so much about its current levels, but about the very worrying *trend* it's on.

Emissions from the housing sector are not sky-rocketing - in fact they're decreasing slowing. Air travel is... well look below

https://twitter.com/giulio_mattioli/status/1332247636943003648

So IMO it does make sense to ring the bell & draw attention to a sector where things are getting worse so fast.

Avoiding to make things worse should be at least as important as trying to make things better.

3. As compared to other sectors of consumer emissions, air travel is more clearly linked to *luxury* (pun intended) than *need*

Yes some immigrants and people with dispersed social networks might 'need' to fly. But a *lot* of air travel is accounted for by international holidays

If we're trying to reduce emissions in a fair & just way, perhaps we should cut/tax someone's 3rd holiday abroad in a year, before we cut/tax someone else's home heating, or journey to work?

That sort of reasoning explains much of the focus on air travel IMO.

[again, you would expect left-wing commentators to see the value of prioritizing needs over luxuries?]

Another misconception about air travel emissions is that you just need to make 'public transport' / rail better and the problem will just go away.

There's a few problems with that. First, it's a bit of a 'carrotist' argument

https://twitter.com/giulio_mattioli/status/1151825080047079425

Second, the evidence on whether high-speed rail substitutes for air travel (for city pairs where they compete) is AFAIK a little sketchy. If it does, the effect is not that large.

But most of all, the problem is that a *lot* of emissions from air travel are from flights over distances that cannot really be substituted by rail.

For those distances, most people either fly or don't go at all.

https://twitter.com/TheClimateCC/status/1362174385264750593

Bastani's tweet seems to suggest that "someone's summer holiday" are something trivial from a CO2 perspective, which we should rather leave alone.

BUT long-distance trips (by all modes) account for 40-50% of GHG emissions from passenger travel
doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.…

My conclusion: after years of being ignored and glamourised, air travel and its contribution to climate change are getting more and more criticism. I think that is well warranted.

It's not a trivial topic, and it definitely shouldn't be a taboo topic.

(END)

PS: @JKSteinberger makes a great point here

https://twitter.com/JKSteinberger/status/1379881665930129418?s=19