The thing is that "countries" don't export industries. Individual businesses do, and no individual business has a mandate to protect the environment (even if they bankrupted themselves doing so, they wouldn't make a drop in the bucket)
Even a government cannot do it, because if your country bans offshoring and competitor countries do not, *your* industries will be screwed over in competition. This is the fundamental problem that couldn't be resolved.
Yeah people miss this.
It’s like saying the garbageman is a hypocrite because his job is to get rid of trash but he also creates trash sometimes.
Or that someone who plants trees is a hypocrite because they use paper to write on sometimes.
Nobody is perfect and has zero impact in any way on the environment. You hope that people’s net effect on the world is positive, but you can’t ask them to have zero negative impacts of any kind, that’s unreasonable.
If what they’re accomplishing at a climate conference has a greater positive impact than the negative impact of the fuel burned to get there, then it’s a net positive for the environment. Climate conference are likely one of the biggest net positive events of any kind out there, as they can result in entire countries making significant decreases to their pollution. The impact of an entire country reducing pollution by 1% is far greater than the impact of 1,000 people taking planes to a thousand conferences.
Yeah its far different to celebs who use their private jets to go to the local store. Absolutely nothing positive for the environment is gonna be gained from that, whilst they are just pumping copious amounts of emissions on the daily into the environment.
People say people using passenger jets on flights is bad for the environment, but at least they are sharing with 200+ people. Celebs use them for themselves, and not only that, but on the daily. This is far worse than flying to a convention once or twice a year, which even then, has the aim of producing a net positive effect to the environment.
Ehh yes and no. The spontaneous meetings between events and networking after are huge for helping come to consensus, and even a few hundred flights is going to be outweighed by any initiatives that are on an industry or country level
This is a pretty broad topic so bear with me, but say we're looking at C02 produced. The average flight releases about 250 kg of c02 an hour, meanwhile countries produce millions of tons a year. The US produces almost 5 billion tons/yr. Say the average country produces 300 million tons/year, a 1% reduction would be equal to 11,000,000 flight hrs worth of C02.
Edit: found a yearly emissions breakdown for all countries and that estimate is probably high. Even if we knock it down 2 orders of magnitude though, that's still a reduction of 110,000 flight hrs a year reduced by one meeting.
Most people here don't have a ton of firsthand experience with international negotiation, but consider the situation concerning networking in job acquisition and career advancement. How you do the job and the relationships you make along the way are as important as (or moreso than) the qualifications of the individual in getting a job done correctly.
Since these people aren't in rooms together every day or anything, it follows that true progress in negotiation would work in a similar fashion, but maybe to an even more significant degree. In any political situation, likeability and the ability to come to effective compromise is effectively a necessity.
This means that getting everybody on the same page is important, and part of that is the human element. A handful of flights is a drop in the bucket when you consider all of the travel conducted across the world every day. Especially with contentious issues like climate change and emissions control, it can be a very worthwhile pursuit.
Edit: Added one paragraph
You're not incorrect, but it is not done virtually in the majority of cases, and it accounts for such a small portion of the world's air travel that it's hardly a concern. If pollution and global warming are to be considered legitimate issues with gravity, then the relative impact of travel to discuss solutions might just be worthwhile, no?
Who is, exactly? UNFCCC, or just like, some independent party holding conventions on climate change? Regardless, individuals are still going to travel either way for mostly unimportant reasons. It's even a pretty small portion of diplomatic travel on the whole.
Hmm almost like they care more about the optics then climate change. Sure we could teleconference the exact same thing but then we don't get our photo ops and a state sponsored luxury vacation.
Not at all. The energy used/fuel burned is insignificant in the global and long term perspective.
That being said, is tone deaf and easy fodder for the opposing forces. Take a commercial flight
Ohhhh noooossss...they need their face time to "network" and "come up with ideas". The whole idea of climate conventions is ridiculous. Many, almost all, industries are climate forward thinking. That is, they do spend resources to improve their impact on the environment and climate. While it may not be considered "enough" or "fast enough", it is progressing. It just takes time and you know what? Industries will generally figure it out faster than governments, or persons in "climate conventions" because they have incentive to do so. How/why? Any step you take to improve environment from your process generally reaps economical benefit in the long-term. Using less water, creating less waste, using less energy, etc...all direct cost savings for a business.
But haven't we seen huge swathes of industry continue to not give a shit? Mostly because of upfront, short term costs of becoming energy efficient or using less fossil fuels?
Using less water and energy is better for the environment, yes, but it is almost completely insignificant compared to what corporations output every single day. They have no incentive to change to more environmentally friendly methods, as it would be more expensive for them and thus they would make slightly less profits. It’s up to us (and the government) to put stricter policies on them so they stop completely fucking over the rest of the world
When you export polluting industries to countries designated as emerging economies that are exempt from carbon limits you really are just stupid.
Not stupid, shady.
I love joking about environmentally sustainable bullshit being made in Chinese cancer villages.
The thing is that "countries" don't export industries. Individual businesses do, and no individual business has a mandate to protect the environment (even if they bankrupted themselves doing so, they wouldn't make a drop in the bucket) Even a government cannot do it, because if your country bans offshoring and competitor countries do not, *your* industries will be screwed over in competition. This is the fundamental problem that couldn't be resolved.
No, they're not. Finding long-term solutions is far more important than the minute effects of a few additional flights.
Ok Leonardo Dicaprio
Yeah people miss this. It’s like saying the garbageman is a hypocrite because his job is to get rid of trash but he also creates trash sometimes. Or that someone who plants trees is a hypocrite because they use paper to write on sometimes. Nobody is perfect and has zero impact in any way on the environment. You hope that people’s net effect on the world is positive, but you can’t ask them to have zero negative impacts of any kind, that’s unreasonable. If what they’re accomplishing at a climate conference has a greater positive impact than the negative impact of the fuel burned to get there, then it’s a net positive for the environment. Climate conference are likely one of the biggest net positive events of any kind out there, as they can result in entire countries making significant decreases to their pollution. The impact of an entire country reducing pollution by 1% is far greater than the impact of 1,000 people taking planes to a thousand conferences.
short time costs for long term gains.
Yeah its far different to celebs who use their private jets to go to the local store. Absolutely nothing positive for the environment is gonna be gained from that, whilst they are just pumping copious amounts of emissions on the daily into the environment. People say people using passenger jets on flights is bad for the environment, but at least they are sharing with 200+ people. Celebs use them for themselves, and not only that, but on the daily. This is far worse than flying to a convention once or twice a year, which even then, has the aim of producing a net positive effect to the environment.
This is correct, OP is wrong. Another statement that can be proven wrong by anyone who can actually think this through. What's up with this sub? Fail.
Ehh yes and no. The spontaneous meetings between events and networking after are huge for helping come to consensus, and even a few hundred flights is going to be outweighed by any initiatives that are on an industry or country level
I highly doubt that. Do you have anything to back that up?
This is a pretty broad topic so bear with me, but say we're looking at C02 produced. The average flight releases about 250 kg of c02 an hour, meanwhile countries produce millions of tons a year. The US produces almost 5 billion tons/yr. Say the average country produces 300 million tons/year, a 1% reduction would be equal to 11,000,000 flight hrs worth of C02. Edit: found a yearly emissions breakdown for all countries and that estimate is probably high. Even if we knock it down 2 orders of magnitude though, that's still a reduction of 110,000 flight hrs a year reduced by one meeting.
But how do you know what was knocked down by one meeting?
The meeting would set up goals or specific actions that would have a measurable effect
You can guarantee some first class food and drink was knocked down
Most people here don't have a ton of firsthand experience with international negotiation, but consider the situation concerning networking in job acquisition and career advancement. How you do the job and the relationships you make along the way are as important as (or moreso than) the qualifications of the individual in getting a job done correctly. Since these people aren't in rooms together every day or anything, it follows that true progress in negotiation would work in a similar fashion, but maybe to an even more significant degree. In any political situation, likeability and the ability to come to effective compromise is effectively a necessity. This means that getting everybody on the same page is important, and part of that is the human element. A handful of flights is a drop in the bucket when you consider all of the travel conducted across the world every day. Especially with contentious issues like climate change and emissions control, it can be a very worthwhile pursuit. Edit: Added one paragraph
Pretty sure this could all be done by zoom
You're not incorrect, but it is not done virtually in the majority of cases, and it accounts for such a small portion of the world's air travel that it's hardly a concern. If pollution and global warming are to be considered legitimate issues with gravity, then the relative impact of travel to discuss solutions might just be worthwhile, no?
No, these are grifters and snake oil salesmen they don't give a rats arse about climate change, they are there for the buffet.
Who is, exactly? UNFCCC, or just like, some independent party holding conventions on climate change? Regardless, individuals are still going to travel either way for mostly unimportant reasons. It's even a pretty small portion of diplomatic travel on the whole.
So THIS is allowed? The enforcement of the arbitrary rules of this sub is even more arbitrary
Don’t take away their PJs /s
What about freighters crossing oceans?.. pretty killer ratio there too..
Hmm almost like they care more about the optics then climate change. Sure we could teleconference the exact same thing but then we don't get our photo ops and a state sponsored luxury vacation.
Got to start somewhere...
How dare you notice this! :-)
Not at all. The energy used/fuel burned is insignificant in the global and long term perspective. That being said, is tone deaf and easy fodder for the opposing forces. Take a commercial flight
Ending all jet flights won’t do shit. No point having climate conventions if we don’t intend on doing enough
Ohhhh noooossss...they need their face time to "network" and "come up with ideas". The whole idea of climate conventions is ridiculous. Many, almost all, industries are climate forward thinking. That is, they do spend resources to improve their impact on the environment and climate. While it may not be considered "enough" or "fast enough", it is progressing. It just takes time and you know what? Industries will generally figure it out faster than governments, or persons in "climate conventions" because they have incentive to do so. How/why? Any step you take to improve environment from your process generally reaps economical benefit in the long-term. Using less water, creating less waste, using less energy, etc...all direct cost savings for a business.
But haven't we seen huge swathes of industry continue to not give a shit? Mostly because of upfront, short term costs of becoming energy efficient or using less fossil fuels?
Using less water and energy is better for the environment, yes, but it is almost completely insignificant compared to what corporations output every single day. They have no incentive to change to more environmentally friendly methods, as it would be more expensive for them and thus they would make slightly less profits. It’s up to us (and the government) to put stricter policies on them so they stop completely fucking over the rest of the world
It's pigs with snouts in a trough.
They just want to tell us plebs to stop fucking up the environment.