Humans have caused 1.5 °C of long-term global warming according to new estimates

Oh a lot of those citizens care - it’s that they travel to Japan for vacation anyway.

There was a famous case of german climate activists, those who glue themself on the road to block the cars to make a statement - they did not showed up to ther appointment in court, because they were enjoying their activism vacation in Bali.

Let's not pretend that the family vacation is the real driver to climate change. Most Americans aren't jet-setting on a regular basis.

Bizarre choice of example

Fun anecdote but I don't see how a handful of individuals being alleged hypocrites is relevant

Air travel is only 11% of all transport emissions, so it's not all that significant, especially given that it's often the only real option for covering vast distances.

But Americans do drive everywhere, and that's 48% of all transport emissions (just cars, not even counting trucks, with that it's more like 73% for all road transport). So yeah. Nobody gives a fuck.

X is only Y% of emissions is the NIMBY of climate change. You can slice every single emissions source as "only Y% of emissions, you should worry about the others first", and then nothing is done on any of them. No, you tackle everything above 0.5%. Otherwise, the SUV's say blame the private jets, the private jets say blame the SUV's, the public transport blames the EV's, America blames China, China blames America's past, the consumers blame the producers and the producers blame the consumers, etc.

Well sure, but not all fields have zero emissions solutions available. Solutions need to be found, but they might not be there in time.

General power production is currently 25% of total, we can fix that with hydro, wind, solar, nuclear. Plans are clear, they need to be put into action.

Agriculture is another 25% which will be a candidate for reduction once there's something more energy dense than diesel available to run every tractor and combine harvester in the world (currently looking like never). EV tractors are in the golf cart stage of usefulness. Not something we can realistically reduce by much if you want to continue eating food.

Home emissions are only 6-8%, but we can easily drive that to zero with induction cookers and ban of fuel oil heating, subsidizing heat pumps and district heating.

Of the 14% that is transport, cars can go EV and vans/trucks for city last mile delivery. Semi trucks should be replaced as much as possible by electric trains (good luck building that much rail though). On the other hand planes can't even ditch leaded fuel for piston engines yet, they're so far behind. Electric planes are a 1 hour flight time joke, hydrogen use is nonexistent. Sea shipping can go battery electric as well although it would be incredibly expensive.

How much we can cut down in the 20% that's emitted by industry is a good question that I have little insight into. I presume some chemical processes inherently release CO2, but there is a lot that can likely be done.

There's a long history of putting the blame for climate change on the everyday actions of individuals so that industry can avoid scrutiny. They'd love it if we devoted our time and effort to policing our neighbors for what car they drive or how often they go to the store or a doctor instead of focusing on the few sources that cause 80% (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/since-2016-80-perc...) of global CO2 emissions or at the harms being caused by the Ag and food industry.

It's very appropriate to pull out "X is only Y% of emissions" when there are vastly larger targets we should be concerning ourselves with. Admitting where the problem actually lies doesn't absolve individuals of all responsibly or prevent individuals from making smarter choices. Very few people need a truck or SUV and we'd all be better off with fewer of them on the road, but it's that's the last thing we should be worried about when it comes to meaningfully addressing climate change.

Americans have no choice, it's either drive or die. Your car is more important in this country than your job, ask any poor person.

Normal people consider climate change to be bad - but still fly far away.

But when even the activists fly for vacation - then who will really reduce voluntarily? Apparently not many. I know people who take it seriously, and personally I have not taken a flight in years.

Still, the relevant point is individuals are quick to blame others, yet unwilling to change their own behavior.

But most people do have a choice whether they fly around the world for vacation - or not.

"80 Percent of Global CO2 Emissions Come From Just 57 Companies"

Oh, so we just have to take down those evil corporations and then everything will be solved?

That is how it sounds like. Easy solution. Except - who will then produce and deliver the cheap food and products for the poor unresponsible individuals to consume?

- You're generalising "a famous case" (pervious post's wording) to "so even the activists do this". I think most people are aware now that <insert race/religion/...> aren't all criminals after a "famous case", but this obviously also goes for every other group consisting of millions of people

- Did these particular individuals get a chance to defend against this allegation or is it just assumed to be the whole truth? It has the ring of a convenient belief¹ that you can bring up whenever someone mentions that e.g. much less frequent flying and rarely eating beef/lamb are some large-impact things people could do. Was it actually them? Do they fly across the world regularly or are we expecting these people to live like monks consistently their whole lives, only going on holiday by bicycle and (if that exists in their country) train? Did they do, or buy, something that compensates the emissions (something one can reasonably believe to be effective, not the airline's 2€-on-checkout option)?

And even if, I'm also not going to stop flying entirely when literally everybody else here does it. I'm not the pope, even if I advocate for making things better (not trying to go for perfect, the enemy of good). Why should I sacrifice my life? I just came back from a train trip across the continent that I could also have flown or driven in individual transport (for free even, as the car I co-use has a flat fee fuel subscription). I try to do the right thing where reasonably possible, as it was in this case, but I'm not sure we should expect everyone who speaks of climate change to only ever do the right thing, especially when things like direct air capture can plausibly undo your emissions. It's cheaper not to fly than to fly and pay Climeworks to undo it, but that is an option, as is reducing the amount of flying. Both are good, both would allow you to further the anecdotal evidence that climate activists fly

¹ By which I mean a belief to justify something one wants for other reasons. The example that comes to mind is the "protip" that leaving the heater on a constant temperature is more efficient than stopping to burn fuel when you're not even home, which means you come home to a warm and cozy place so yeah sure one loves to hear/believe it and nobody sanity checks the values of how much more efficient your heater actually is when burning at a low rate as compared to the fuel saved while you're not home for 8 working hours + commute time

I think they were given their interviews later, but I was not too interested.

They were in Bali at a tourist location. Not in the Sahel doing developement work.

Also where did I say all activists are to blame? I said I know people who don't fly at all and me who only considers flying in very rare circumstances. But true, I am not an activist.

"Do they fly across the world regularly or are we expecting these people to live like monks consistently their whole lives, only going on holiday by bicycle and (if that exists in their country) train?"

I don't think much of activists, who block other peoples daily commute with a standard car - but fly themself around the world for vacation. It does not matter how often they do it. Judging from activists, I suppose their reasoning is something like, they did so much activism blocking normal roads, that they deserve their vacation.

Well, I don't believe they help the cause, rather the opposite.

(And they were from germany btw. In europe you can easily go to lots of places by bus or train)

I don't blame you, if you are flying. But you don't block other people means of (more efficient) transport I suppose, while thinking you are righteous? That is my problem. This kind of activism. All it does is making people angry at activists and the cause.

Yes, but the amount of people "flying around" is pretty small, and the cost of economy air travel is next to nothing in comparison to daily commutes by car. Keep in mind you share that plane with hundreds of people.

As for the last paragraph, you're right to assume I haven't blocked other people's transport. I'm not yet sure whether that's effective, I don't really see the logic but it's how protesting works and that has afaik historically been important for changing bad laws so.... is it good or bad? I don't know but so far it seems obnoxious whenever I'm affected while I'm on their side

"I don't really see the logic but it's how protesting works"

No, protesting works, when it is against something you want to stop. But if I want to convince others to stop something, obviously I cannot continue to do the same or a worse thing. I don't know a single protest that worked this way.

But protesting against chopping down a forest to do more coal mining, did worked recently in germany. That was a good and effective protest (mostly). But blocking roads? It just hurts normal people largely with no alternative of transport. I doubt a single person was convinced to help there. Rather the opposite.

It all adds up.

The impact of one billionare jetting around the world for fun alone, is pretty small as well.

But if all the billionares are doing it, it already adds up to a impressive number.

And if you choose to jet around the world for vacation - then this alone is pretty neglectible, too. But all the other people also doing it isn't.

And yes, there are more people in a plane. Just like in a train or bus. Yet they are way more efficient. Only very few people driver alone over 1000 km for vacation.

This is true and I agree, but when it comes to solving problems, you should start with the most obvious and easy solutions first. The low-hanging fruit. The amount of transportation by plane is so incredibly small as compared to car that IMO it shouldn't be a starting point.

We should look to lowering our plastic consumption, electrifying American homes, and building transportation infrastructure so walking, biking, and public transit become more viable.

"We should look to lowering our plastic consumption, electrifying American homes, and building transportation infrastructure so walking, biking, and public transit become more viable."

Or all of it and reduce flying as well?

At least until we made serious progress in the energy sector.