[r2b2]

Why mix regulation of two effects (sound and emissions)?

It's smarter to write regulation for each uniquely and directly.

Eg.

- Sound from air traffic shall meet <sound regulations> and when violated will incur automatic fees of <formula> amount.

- Air traffic emissions are required to meet <emission regulations> and will be taxed at <formula> amount (which should be used to offset pollution).

[msm_]

I agree with you in principle, but it's probably easier to enforce speed limits than sound and emissions (because both are hard to measure while in air, in contrast to speed).

[capableweb]

Sound would be measured at the ground, I presume, as no one is really bothered by loud things up in the sky, but by the ground.

For emission, require airlines/airplanes to have a emission-sensor installed that automatically measure the emission. As a part of take off, make it mandatory to check it's working and as a part of landing, make sure it sent there data to where it has to go.

[cat_plus_plus]

You know you can just tax fuel according to amount of carbon right?

[c0balt]

“If the penalty for a crime is a fine, then that law only exists for the lower class”

[cdogl]

Be careful witn that reductive reasoning. Fines are an entirely reasonable mechanism to regulate an industry that is highly competitive with tight margins.

[reillyse]

You are contradicting the commenter but I don't think you understand fully what they mean. I took their comment to mean that rich people won't care about a fine and will happily continue polluting. Your statement about "tight margins" is exactly what they are referring to. Only people who care about "tight margins" i.e. poor people, i.e the majority of us, will be effected while rich people who do a disproportionate amount of damage will be able to shrug off the law.

[ericd]

I'd keep in mind that when people talk about the rich doing a disproportionate amount of the damage, if you're American, you're almost certainly who they're talking about. It's the normal American lifestyle that's doing the bulk of the damage, not specifically the richest of the US. The car-centered suburban lifestyle of much of the middle class is an environmental disaster. But sure, bigger houses made with more material and more flights by richer Americans aren't helping.

[Retric]

The middle class in America have a small impact on climate change just like they have a small impact on most things. If you want to understand what’s going on look into who was running disinformation campaigns and actively sabotaging efforts to add carbon taxes etc.

People love to blame SUV’s because they are in peoples faces, but replace every American SUV with an EV and the impact on the climate is negligible. Things would get just as bad a few weeks later, and that’s about it. People blame the rich and powerful because when you blame the people running things when things are fucked up.

Consider, the option for electrified roads instead of burning hydrocarbons existed 20 years ago. We could have reduced gasoline use by around 90% by now without any great breakthroughs but such choices aren’t up to individual consumers.

[rgmerk]

That’s just not true.

If you’re a middle-class American, you have a huge house by global standards, which you heat and cool more than just about anywhere else on Earth. Each family has two bigger than average cars which they drive more than most other countries. Middle class Americans also eat far more beef than most of the world.

It is true that middle class Americans fly less than the rich, let alone the super-rich in private jets.

Yes, the super-rich do pollute a great deal per capita. But the idea that American or indeed global emissions is in large part the result of private consumption of the super-rich is just wrong.

[ericd]

In terms of carbon released to support a given middle class family, it's not a small impact, it's the equivalent of the consumption of many hectares of active-growth forest. But I'm somewhat sympathetic to the argument that people have been steered toward the suburban design plan because that's what's been made available by decisions made by people that weren't them; I've personally had a hard time finding great walkable areas to live that push cars to the periphery. Zoning is a large part of the problem, and largely out of normal people's control. Municode-derived zoning is a blight on our nation, in my opinion.

But then I see what happens at city council meetings and on local forums when people suggest loosening up on zoning rules to allow for denser development. It's mostly normal people that are pushing back on this stuff, and then blaming the "greedy developers" for trying to "ruin their neighborhood". That "traffic is bad enough" and that "our infrastructure can't handle it". We can't have separated bike lanes because "we don't have enough parking as it is", or "that road is already too full, we can't take away lanes". It's totally ingrained in our culture.

Who's been running the disinfo campaigns on carbon taxes?

[imgabe]

Poor people are not flying airplanes. They are operated by large corporations and wealthy individuals. This criticism of fines is not relevant here.

It’s not like “oh the average Joe making 50k a year won’t be able to fly his supersonic jet because of the fines but rich people will”

[super256]

> Only people who care about "tight margins" i.e. poor people

No. Rich people, who fly business and first class still fly with the same airlines as poor people. The margins of the entire industry are thin.

[aqme28]

There’s no “lower class” when we’re talking about the people and corporations who own jet aircraft.