75
submitted 10 months ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/world@lemmy.world
top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] kool_newt@lemm.ee 30 points 10 months ago

Oh my turn... my goal is to drink 1/2 cup less coffee per day by 2029.

[-] andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun 17 points 10 months ago

Is that a 5% reduction? Are you drinking 10 cups of coffee a day? That doesn't seem healthy.

[-] kool_newt@lemm.ee 17 points 10 months ago

it's a 10% reduction, so I'm doing twice as much and a year earlier.

[-] YurkshireLad@lemmy.ca 10 points 10 months ago

That’ll definitely save the world.

[-] deranger@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

Considering aviation is 2.5% of global CO2 emissions, you could get rid of all the aviation emissions and still be very far off from saving anything.

[-] joelthelion@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

And yet they are part of the obvious low hanging fruit for reducing emissions

[-] Maalus@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Are they obvious? If they account for 2.5%, shouldn't the focus be on something that doesn't produce an emotional response (i.e. planes burn so much fuel! They bad for environment!) But is a bigger contributor to polution?

Ships come to mind. Biggest 5 polute as much as all cars on earth. Yet car electrification is brough on constantly in the discourse, when using bunker fuel on ships is met wirh silence

[-] joelthelion@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

They are obvious because they are rarely irreplaceable. We can live without mass tourism and fast deliveries.

[-] Maalus@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

I mean, we can also live with the 2.5% polution they cause

[-] joelthelion@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Not really. People in developed countries need to divide their emissions by approximately ten times. Every little bit helps. And we should start with the easy ones.

[-] tb_@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Oh no, it's such a low reduction! Might as well do nothing then.

[-] deranger@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

I’m not saying “do nothing”. I’m saying efforts are better spent elsewhere as they’ll have much more dramatic effect.

Air travel should be addressed after massive emitters like industrial sources. Otherwise we’re going to greatly disrupt the lives of normal people trying to see their grandma for very little benefit.

[-] Wiitigo@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

That should do it! Pack it up, boys.

[-] dumdum666@kbin.social 7 points 10 months ago

They keep drip feeding us those reductions… as if that would change anything. This is just to pretend that they are doing something, in reality they don’t care if the temperature increases 3 degrees Celsius or more

[-] Knusper@feddit.de 6 points 10 months ago
[-] Haagel@lemmings.world 6 points 10 months ago
[-] Nastybutler@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago
[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 0 points 10 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Nov 24 (Reuters) - A meeting of more than 100 countries on Friday agreed to an interim goal for emissions reductions from global aviation by 2030 by using less-polluting fuels, but China, Russia and some others aired concerns about the impact on their economies.

The United States told the closing session of the meeting, which was held ahead of next week's COP28 climate summit, that the goal sent a "clear and positive signal" to the financial community, which must invest in new clean energy projects.

"Now it is up to the finance community and energy sector to support the necessary infrastructure and start delivering SAF in ever increasing quantities,” said Haldane Dodd, executive director of the Air Transport Action Group, which represents airframe and engine makers, among others.

Aviation is not directly covered by the Paris Agreement on combating climate change, but the air transport sector has previously pledged to align itself with global goals by setting an "aspirational" target of net zero emissions by 2050.

China, which has agreed to aim for carbon neutrality by 2060 rather than 2050, said the goal would "enormously increase" airline operating costs and discriminate against developing countries by posing a threat to energy and food security.

Francis Mwangi, senior planning officer at Kenya's Civil Aviation Authority, said his country needs financing to study the economic benefits of domestic SAF production and for using an old Mombasa-based refinery to produce the fuel.


The original article contains 571 words, the summary contains 238 words. Saved 58%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2023
75 points (98.7% liked)

World News

38824 readers
1825 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS