[gavia1]

I think you are missing the forest from the trees. If we want to truly reduce climate change we should start by reducing international shipping, consumerism, and non-essential air travel for both pleasure and business.

A 300MPH speed run in an ultra low production Bugatti car is more or less insignificant in the fight against climate change.

[geff82]

You write we should reduce: international shipping, consumerism, and non-essential air travel

Sure you can but it will be heavily inconvenient (at least for many in the west). But do you know what reduces the carbon footprint by about 75% in a country like Germany? 1.) Electric cars/trains 2.) Electricity from renewables 3.) Heating using electrical power from renewables (heat pumps)

Of the last 25%, there are 20% from industrial production and in the last 5% you could include air travel (2%) among other things.

Heating and driving and getting power from renewables makes your lifestyle about 0% different from what it is now. Buying goods that last longer even means giving life a touch of luxury. A better, more luxurious lifestyle that produces about 75% less carbon dioxide. Impossible? In a growing number of countries, this will be possible soon. Of course, not flying, not consuming gives you that "holy" feeling of "having done something". But done right, a sustainable lifestyle makes the life we have now even better. It takes a bit of political willpower, of course.

[gavia1]

I am not disagreeing with electric cars at all, I think it is important.

But the carbon footprint created within the West is just a small amount of the carbon footprint that the West contributes to. We can't just reduce our own carbon footprint if it simply pushes that carbon footprint onto other, less developed countries.

I think it will be very unlikely that we will continue to live with the same luxuries that we enjoy today while still aggressively reducing climate change. It won't be a case of "we have electric transport, but I can still buy a new iPhone once a year". It will be a case of aggressively cutting back everywhere and and ultimately growth and our economy will suffer in the short-term for long-term sustainability.

[geff82]

If you freeze the economy to today‘s state and technology, there will be no growth any more, sure. But at least in our lifetime, the move to a sustainable economy will create more growth and opportunities than will be cut in unsustainable industries. I do not what happens in 150 years, but for the next 50 years I do not worry. As we need more intelligent technologies than we used to have, the value ofhe output will rise, thus economies that are able to adapt will profit.

Using solar, wind and water to create power will, by the way, not push the carbon footprint somewhere else. It will, to a great part, vanish. And those economies who, in future, produce their own energy instead of importing them, will have a higher GDP and less dependence of foreign markets.

[mikeash]

Why international shipping specifically? It’s extremely efficient and currently accounts for only around 3% of global CO2 emissions. (Compare to roughly 50% for electricity production, 20% for manufacturing, and 20% for transportation as a whole.)

[EForEndeavour]

For starters, because shipping CO2 emissions are rising fast [0], and CO2 is by far not the only concern. Ships burn unrefined "bunker oil," emitting proportionally huge amounts of particulate pollution, sulphur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides, which harm people and other organisms [1, 2]. For example, back in 2009, the 15 biggest ships emitted as much SO2 and NOx as all the cars on earth: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping...

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_shippi...

[1] http://www.npi.gov.au/resource/oxides-nitrogen-0

[2] http://www.npi.gov.au/resource/sulfur-dioxide

[mikeash]

Emissions from everything else are rising fast too. Surely curbing emissions growth from electricity generation will have a much bigger impact.

The articles about SO2 and NOx emissions are clickbait. They compare to cars, which are extremely clean in this respect. In any case, the subject here is climate change and these pollutants are irrelevant. (Strictly speaking, they slightly mitigate warning.)

I’m not saying we should ignore shipping, but I don’t see why it should be anywhere close to first on the list of things to focus on when fighting climate change.