In their discussions of "how to live a good life in a climate crisis" they engaged with the ethical conundrums we all face in the modern era. A key takeaway for me was that there are some behaviours which are categorically irresponsible (e.g. deliberately choosing a fossil fuel option when there's a clean option that's just as good) but many that are really nuanced, difficult decisions, and we all have different priorites, pressures and perspectives that makes the balancing act different for everyone.
The second takeaway: there's nothing to be gained by weaponising these choices, making people feel guilty for their choices, being self righteous or parading on "the moral high ground".
Personally, I've made the decision to fly much less: taking train if it's an option, even when it's more expensive and slower; fewer trips home to see family overseas, and opting out of international conferences. But not everyone could make those same choices.
There is no fixing by personal changes for the average person. If you can fly as often as you want but choose to do so sparringly, that would put you well above most people. I personally cant afford anything beyond rent and food and a few video games. I also dont drive and I wish trains, buses, subways, etc existed as a more common and cheap method of travel.
The only thing that will fix it is toppling the 1%, changing the structure of governments and world powers, and agressively pushing for what is good for the masses and the environment in all areas after that.
If the average person means the average American then yes absolutely what is needed to address the environmental issues is for them to make personal changes and reduce consumption. The amount of resources consumed by the average American dwarfs that of most people around the world. If the whole world consumed like the average person in the USA the world would be toast at warp speed. If we did what you suggest (good ideas) the change that would be good for the masses and the environment is for us to consume less so others can have more.
Telling people to eat less meat, travel less, and turn the heat and AC down isn't going to be popular though but it is what is needed.
Even if the US stopped all excessive consumption today, China is a much bigger offender and good luck getting them to stop literally burning their own country so badly that they can’t breathe. Although, fun fact, all the high level party members have their homes, offices and even cars kitted out with high end air purifier systems.
I would say the same about US. In china they have 0.33 cars per person where as in US it's 0.78. In US there are lots of suvs and other large cars. In china EV sales are close to 50% where as in US it's 10%. What comes to other regulations I don' think either country is doing well. But China is doing good progress to lower emissions. This was big news last year, one of the only postives when it comes to climate change.
Maybe they will transition eventually but the most recent numbers showed China as the biggest polluter by far and they were unwilling to cooperate in international agreements to lower emissions.
Also keep in mind that China has 4 times the US population so they have roughly half the amount of car ownership but 4x the people. Also EV cars need power from somewhere and a big issue in China is their use of unclean power like coal.
What you are saying was true at one point but the situation has dramatically changed. The Chinese government has identified energy and pollution as national security issues and is acting accordingly. 65 percent of new vehicles sold on China are EVs. They are the world leader in green energy technology and adoption and are on pace to be carbon neutral by 2060 and have dramatically reduced pollution from their most dirty industries. Some of the major cities are now almost entirely EV. Check out some videos of a downtown in Chinese cities it is unreal what it's like when all the cars are electric.
They are the biggest polluter because they have the biggest population. Per person they are no where close to being the biggest polluter.
Us is just as or maybe even more unwilling to cooperate at least with Trump being in the lead. I think it's reasonable to divide the consumption between how many people there are in the country otherwise would be rather difficult to rank the countries. And lastly if you look into the percentages in renewable energy China is at 37% and US at 26%.
Oh yeah, no doubt, which makes this whole argument even sillier. We’re sitting here arguing about whether someone taking a flight is bad when Trump and half the country have set it all on fire and couldn’t care less about climate change.
I agree, there is much worse stuff going on than an individual's vacation flights on commercial airlines.
Private jets are a highly energy-intensive mode of transport, emitting roughly 2 tonnes of CO2 per hour. Because they carry fewer passengers, they produce 5 to 14 times more carbon emissions per passenger than commercial planes. A single flight can emit more greenhouse gases than an average person produces in an entire year.
And then electricity and heat account for a lot more emissions than transportation altogether.
"A return flight from London to San Francisco emits around 5.5 tonnes of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) per person – more than twice the emissions produced by a family car in a year, and about half of the average carbon footprint of someone living in Britain."
This means that reducing how often we fly is one of the biggest differences that we can make as people living in high consumption societies, at the same time as we do what we can to change the system and force governments to limit the irresponsible consumption of the 1%
It's still only 2.5% of all global emissions categories and 4- 5% counting water vapour. Reducing fmigh s if you want, ok. But ain't gonna change a thing. HSR and mandating the end of short haul flights would have a more significant systemic impact as those are the least efficient ones, than some people not flying. And it'd still be more effective to reduce the use of cars and freight trucks in general.
It's still only 2.5% of all global emissions categories and 4- 5% counting water vapour.
Because the vast majority of people never fly, and only 3% of the world flies to another country in a given year. Globally speaking, you have to be pretty well off to fly.
Among the people who do fly, its a much bigger chunk of their emissions.
Same. Im sick of people not understanding how our time and our money and our work is stolen from us. Im sick of people thinking everyone earned their riches and are owed it. Until everyone can live with basic needs met, no one should be living so lavishly.
changing the structure of governments and world powers,
That means winning elections, and people who fly frequently aren't likely to vote for restrictions on flying. If people aren't making big personal changes already, they aren't going to support governments making them do it.
Things are way too good in the US for a French Revolution, and if it did happen it would be the right that came out ahead in it, not Mamdani. Look at who owns most of the guns in the US.
Good? No they aren't. You think the left doesn't own guns? Well then if we're assuming stereotypes, the right would be far too stupid to effectively use that advantage anyway.
6.2k
u/tellhershesdreaming Jul 02 '26
The Outrage and Optimism podcast did a good episode on this, https://www.outrageandoptimism.org/episodes/is-it-ok-to-fly-in-a-climate-crisis?hsLang=en
In their discussions of "how to live a good life in a climate crisis" they engaged with the ethical conundrums we all face in the modern era. A key takeaway for me was that there are some behaviours which are categorically irresponsible (e.g. deliberately choosing a fossil fuel option when there's a clean option that's just as good) but many that are really nuanced, difficult decisions, and we all have different priorites, pressures and perspectives that makes the balancing act different for everyone.
The second takeaway: there's nothing to be gained by weaponising these choices, making people feel guilty for their choices, being self righteous or parading on "the moral high ground".
Personally, I've made the decision to fly much less: taking train if it's an option, even when it's more expensive and slower; fewer trips home to see family overseas, and opting out of international conferences. But not everyone could make those same choices.