[godelski]

Aviation is small fish though. REALLY small fish. This type of aviation even more so. It accounts for only 1-2% of anthropomorphic CO2eq production. Benefits outweigh the bad. I'm not aware of climate scientists actually caring about supersonic travel.

I'm kinda surprised to see this kind of hostility. Same thing happens when nuclear is suggested even though the IPCC HIGHLY advocates its use. It is all about relative impact. Part of the problem with resolving climate change is that even the people who acknowledge it fight among themselves and don't push for both current technologies (which includes nuclear) and research for new technologies (fusion, batteries, and better solar/hydro/wind). We need to just listen to what the experts say, not what you read in some blog post or HN comment.

[worldsayshi]

Aviation is currently a small fish because it's currently available to such small part of the population on a regular basis. For those that take part of it it's a major part of their footprint. Scaling it up to more people is very unsustainable. Therefore fossil fuel aviation is unsustainable in a world where more and more people get richer.

> Same thing happens when nuclear is suggested

It's not the "same thing". Nuclear has some sustainability benefits. Bringing back commercial hypersonic air travel seems to have no such benefits.

[graeme]

If we cut carbon out of everything else, the price of oil will drop, and aviation will be able to greatly expand.

Air travel is low now only because it's expensive. People world gladly take many, many more flights if they were cheaper.

Of course if we taxed carbon this problem would go away, and taxing international flights would probably be easier than a general carbon tax, if flights were all that was left.

[wallace_f]

Internet experts, politicians, bureaucrats and intellectuals can argue until the end of time about which CO2-emitting products and services deserve to, or should, exist.

Just the same way the expertise of the most-brilliant central planners in the USSR and elsewhere allocated resources.

It doesn't work. There's a better way which is also consistent with democracy and individual choice. But people don't like the sound of it.

[worldsayshi]

> There's a better way

You mean putting a price tag on emissions I assume?

[wallace_f]

Yes of course. Just tax carbon (and use the proceeds to give a flat rebate to everyone).

[zhoujianfu]

I’m not sure why you’re downvoted... this is 100% the best way to incentivize reduction in carbon emissions. And just keep upping the tax gradually as needed.

[dnautics]

Is it? Flat carbon trading without any credit schemes is as good and has some pretty good precedent going for it (nox and sox markets)

[wallace_f]

It's the next-best solution. The only reasonable argument in favor that I've seen is that it is easier and more authoritarian (maybe be careful believing this is a good thing?) to set a hard cap. But a carbon tax can always be adjusted.

It's inferior in econonic efficiency and comprehensive coverage to a carbon tax.

And if implemented incorrectly, it becomes corporate welfare, and this has already happened. It has potential to be just another corporatist-cronyist scheme at taxpayer's expense.

And to date government and bureaucracy have been pretty horrible about solving climate change.

Carbon tax is a simple, elegant, efficient, effective solution. Most people just dont like the sound of it though.

[based2]

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/aviation_en

[longerthoughts]

Initial post wasn’t meant to be hostile at all and I’m still unsure of whether or not supersonic travel is a net positive or negative.

My issue was with the parent comment essentially suggesting that you can justify boosting emissions from flight travel because we still rely on fossil fuels, so might as well double down. Nobody was suggesting that we immediately cease all flight travel. I’m open to the possibility that supersonic travel is a net positive, but the argument needs to be around what we’re getting in return for the emissions and why that’s worth it.

[longerthoughts]

>We need to just listen to what the experts say

People saying supersonic travel is a step in the wrong direction are listening to experts who agree that our use of fossil fuels is a threat to humanity and the environment. And what about when experts disagree? There has to be some level of independent thought to parse and apply what experts are putting forward.

[idontpost]

> I'm not aware of climate scientists actually caring about supersonic travel.

Because there isn't any. None. Zero. Why would you be aware of people worrying about something that currently doesn't exist?

[godelski]

> Why would you be aware of people worrying about something that currently doesn't exist?

I'm not sure how to break this to you, but scientists are generally aware about up and coming technologies. And we do think about potential future impact.

So let me rephrase

>>I'm not aware of climate scientists actually caring about potential future implementations of supersonic travel.

[idontpost]

I'm not sure how to break this to you, but supersonic flight isn't an up and coming technology.

It's decades old, and it's failed for economic reasons.

Climate scientists worrying about the impacts of supersonic flight would be like Ornithologists looking to spot dinosaurs in the wild.

[toufiqbarhamov]

That’s because they’re more aware of the history of commercial supersonic transport than the investors at Boom, and therefore have no reason to worry.

[jessaustin]

Haters can't make up their minds...

[toufiqbarhamov]

You don’t expect to see an unvarnished historical perspective derided that way here, but I suppose you have a point. Can you tell me where I’ve changed my mind on this issue?