[whatever1]

> Like airplanes? Like cruise ships?

1 space x launch for wealthy tourists emits the same CO2 as around 500 transatlantic flights that can haul 10’s of thousands of people between continents.

Yet this forum is fast to propose solutions to make long haul flights unaffordable, in order to curb the emissions, but somehow when Elon Musk is involved, the calculation changes completely and it is fine to needlessly emit co2 the moment that climate catastrophe has reached our doorsteps.

[agar]

First, the primary use case of rockets (especially SpaceX) is satellite lift and ultimately Moon and Mars landing, not "wealthy tourists." Obviously the recent Inspiration4 launch shows that there will be tourist flights, but this appears to be the exception and not the norm (unlike Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic).

Second, there are approximately 100,000 airline flights per day worldwide; American Airlines alone flies 5,000 per day. Even 1,000 rocket launches per year would be equivalent to 5 days of traditional flights.

People disagree with the climate concern not because "Elon Musk is involved" - it is because critics are focused on the wrong thing. There are far more climate destructive practices with far less benefit to the good of mankind. All those 100,000 flights per day? That only accounts for about 2% of carbon emissions. A SpaceX launch, to use your figures, accounts for 0.00005%.

So why focus on this extraordinarily tiny fraction of climate impact? Is it because it's Elon? Because rockets look big and thus wasteful?

What about the incredibly important climate monitoring satellites they'll lift, or benefits like GPS, global internet, potential breakthroughs in space manufacturing, astronomy, or physics? Or even just the hope and excitement about the future that many feel in the face of otherwise depressing news everywhere. The massive size and lift capacity of the Starship (100 tons to orbit, 8m wide by 20m high or so) will transform activities in low earth orbit and beyond.

And I'll close by saying, yes I think Elon has earned a little slack - he has done more than most people on the planet to reduce global emissions. Tesla, Solar City (now Tesla solar), battery technology (which has been a massive impediment to clean energy storage), future electric long-haul trucks, and the supercharger network (to make extended travel on electric vehicles possible) all have reduced emissions tremendously - probably far more than the additional carbon from rocket launches (though I haven't done the math).

So that's my $0.02, anyway.

[whatever1]

Even ExxonMobil by itself does not contribute more than 0.00001% to the total global emissions, and they keep our infrastructure running.

So I guess nobody has to do anything about climate change since they individually represent a tiny fraction of the problem.

Then why do the peasants pay renewable energy tax?

[agar]

Why are you throwing out numbers like that while complaining about other people's unsourced information?

You are also using a strawman argument. I said people should focus on areas of great impact, not "nobody has to do anything." I'm beginning to think you are not interested a credible discussion.

This link refutes your assertion of ExxonMobil (they are responsible for 1.68% of global emissions), as well as answering why "the peasants pay renewable energy tax."

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2021/08/companies-highest-c...

> Exxon Mobil, which accounted for 1.98% of global emissions, the sixth highest percentage, ranked ninth among the top spending oil and gas companies, according to an OpenSecrets analysis of the IPCC report. The company’s PAC contributed $1.1 million to federal candidates in 2020, 78% of which went to Republicans. It also contributed $165,000 to other PACs and party committees last year, 97% of which went to Republican groups.

[whatever1]

A source (opensecrets) that is claiming as a source itself(opensecrets analysis). You win.

[agar]

Wow, you really have to question your motivations when you're defending Exxon's climate change contribution. But OK, I'll play that game.

The IPCC was the source for the OpenSecrets statement (as they said in the quote). They just consolidated the information. Feel free to read the IPCC Report yourself.

Or The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10...

(Table shows ExxonMobile at 1.98%)

Or Statistica: https://www.statista.com/statistics/531354/greenhouse-gas-em...

Or Sustainability Now: http://sustainabilitynow.com/Docs/exxons_climate_footprint.p...

> The contribution of emissions from ExxonMobil to total carbon dioxide concentrations above pre-industrial levels in 2002 was 4.8 to 5.5%. This percentage contribution from ExxonMobil has steadily increased, rising from 0% in 1882, to 2.5 to 2.8% in 1960 and then almost doubling in the last forty years to 4.8 to 5.5% in 2002. The contribution of methane emissions is smaller, peaking at 1.6% of total global concentrations above pre-industrial levels, in 2002.

[whatever1]

One might question your ability to do basic research and a division.

ExxonMobil reports 120M tons of CO2 per year [1]

Our total anthropogenic emmissions according to IPCC, EPA and other credible scientific organizations are close to 35B tons of CO2 per year [2].

You can also calculate it by using the concentration of CO2 and the total volume of air on earth. But I guess this is out of your league.

Now divide 35B with 120M. You will get 0.0034. That is 0.34%.

One piece of advice. Don’t become a researcher. Keep posting on HN.

[1] https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/-/media/Global/Files/energy...

[2] https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions