▲ 58 ▼ New wave of bomb threats hits at least 25 passenger flights across Europe (www.reuters.com) submitted 1 day ago by MashedHobbits@lemy.lol to c/world 9 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Malica@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago (8 children) How long are we going to let them do this? permalink fedilink source hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] wyldrstallyns@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 day ago (7 children) You mean the airlines collectively ignoring their massive, ceaseless, nigh-irreparable climate damage? I'm also wondering that, fellow human that affects directly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (6 children) All global aviation contributes around 3.5% of human made climate change, and 2.5% of CO2 emissions. And that’s all aviation combined. Agriculture contributes 3-4x as much. Completely getting rid of all aviation globally wouldn’t even make a dent in climate change. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] wyldrstallyns@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 22 hours ago (2 children) Hunh. That's the stat for the usage of fuel, predominately, I assume? I'm curious how including the attendant industries' contributions would affect that number. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago (1 child) The 4% is all factors. The 2.5% is just the direct emissions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] wyldrstallyns@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 14 hours ago Fair enough, thanks! permalink fedilink source parent [–] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 1 point 15 hours ago (2 children) How is 3.5% not literally a dent? I would be absolutely stoked if we could randomly solve 3.5% while we work on the other 96.5%. We need solutions for everything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago (1 child) Because if we removed 3.5% of emissions today, it would take us right back to where we were roughly just 2 years ago. We need to clean up the energy sector first. That’s roughly 80% of emissions. Agriculture is the next big one at 10%. Aviation is by far the hardest sector to clean up and would make the least impact. Energy is the easiest AND makes the biggest impact on total emissions and climate change. Going to green energy production like wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear, and making the energy sector entirely emissions free would reset out total emissions back to over 100 years ago. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 hours ago Jist to be clear, your 80% figure for "energy" includes a lot more than electricity production, which is like 39%. You're counting natural gas use for heat, industry, and fossil fuels for transportation, in addition to electricity. Yeah obviously let's go all in on renewables but you're not representing the issue correctly here. And 3.5% is a big deal, so we'll just have to disagree on that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] wyldrstallyns@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 day ago (7 children) You mean the airlines collectively ignoring their massive, ceaseless, nigh-irreparable climate damage? I'm also wondering that, fellow human that affects directly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (6 children) All global aviation contributes around 3.5% of human made climate change, and 2.5% of CO2 emissions. And that’s all aviation combined. Agriculture contributes 3-4x as much. Completely getting rid of all aviation globally wouldn’t even make a dent in climate change. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] wyldrstallyns@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 22 hours ago (2 children) Hunh. That's the stat for the usage of fuel, predominately, I assume? I'm curious how including the attendant industries' contributions would affect that number. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago (1 child) The 4% is all factors. The 2.5% is just the direct emissions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] wyldrstallyns@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 14 hours ago Fair enough, thanks! permalink fedilink source parent [–] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 1 point 15 hours ago (2 children) How is 3.5% not literally a dent? I would be absolutely stoked if we could randomly solve 3.5% while we work on the other 96.5%. We need solutions for everything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago (1 child) Because if we removed 3.5% of emissions today, it would take us right back to where we were roughly just 2 years ago. We need to clean up the energy sector first. That’s roughly 80% of emissions. Agriculture is the next big one at 10%. Aviation is by far the hardest sector to clean up and would make the least impact. Energy is the easiest AND makes the biggest impact on total emissions and climate change. Going to green energy production like wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear, and making the energy sector entirely emissions free would reset out total emissions back to over 100 years ago. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 hours ago Jist to be clear, your 80% figure for "energy" includes a lot more than electricity production, which is like 39%. You're counting natural gas use for heat, industry, and fossil fuels for transportation, in addition to electricity. Yeah obviously let's go all in on renewables but you're not representing the issue correctly here. And 3.5% is a big deal, so we'll just have to disagree on that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (6 children) All global aviation contributes around 3.5% of human made climate change, and 2.5% of CO2 emissions. And that’s all aviation combined. Agriculture contributes 3-4x as much. Completely getting rid of all aviation globally wouldn’t even make a dent in climate change. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] wyldrstallyns@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 22 hours ago (2 children) Hunh. That's the stat for the usage of fuel, predominately, I assume? I'm curious how including the attendant industries' contributions would affect that number. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago (1 child) The 4% is all factors. The 2.5% is just the direct emissions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] wyldrstallyns@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 14 hours ago Fair enough, thanks! permalink fedilink source parent [–] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 1 point 15 hours ago (2 children) How is 3.5% not literally a dent? I would be absolutely stoked if we could randomly solve 3.5% while we work on the other 96.5%. We need solutions for everything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago (1 child) Because if we removed 3.5% of emissions today, it would take us right back to where we were roughly just 2 years ago. We need to clean up the energy sector first. That’s roughly 80% of emissions. Agriculture is the next big one at 10%. Aviation is by far the hardest sector to clean up and would make the least impact. Energy is the easiest AND makes the biggest impact on total emissions and climate change. Going to green energy production like wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear, and making the energy sector entirely emissions free would reset out total emissions back to over 100 years ago. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 hours ago Jist to be clear, your 80% figure for "energy" includes a lot more than electricity production, which is like 39%. You're counting natural gas use for heat, industry, and fossil fuels for transportation, in addition to electricity. Yeah obviously let's go all in on renewables but you're not representing the issue correctly here. And 3.5% is a big deal, so we'll just have to disagree on that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] wyldrstallyns@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 22 hours ago (2 children) Hunh. That's the stat for the usage of fuel, predominately, I assume? I'm curious how including the attendant industries' contributions would affect that number. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago (1 child) The 4% is all factors. The 2.5% is just the direct emissions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] wyldrstallyns@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 14 hours ago Fair enough, thanks! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago (1 child) The 4% is all factors. The 2.5% is just the direct emissions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] wyldrstallyns@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 14 hours ago Fair enough, thanks! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] wyldrstallyns@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 14 hours ago Fair enough, thanks! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 1 point 15 hours ago (2 children) How is 3.5% not literally a dent? I would be absolutely stoked if we could randomly solve 3.5% while we work on the other 96.5%. We need solutions for everything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago (1 child) Because if we removed 3.5% of emissions today, it would take us right back to where we were roughly just 2 years ago. We need to clean up the energy sector first. That’s roughly 80% of emissions. Agriculture is the next big one at 10%. Aviation is by far the hardest sector to clean up and would make the least impact. Energy is the easiest AND makes the biggest impact on total emissions and climate change. Going to green energy production like wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear, and making the energy sector entirely emissions free would reset out total emissions back to over 100 years ago. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 hours ago Jist to be clear, your 80% figure for "energy" includes a lot more than electricity production, which is like 39%. You're counting natural gas use for heat, industry, and fossil fuels for transportation, in addition to electricity. Yeah obviously let's go all in on renewables but you're not representing the issue correctly here. And 3.5% is a big deal, so we'll just have to disagree on that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago (1 child) Because if we removed 3.5% of emissions today, it would take us right back to where we were roughly just 2 years ago. We need to clean up the energy sector first. That’s roughly 80% of emissions. Agriculture is the next big one at 10%. Aviation is by far the hardest sector to clean up and would make the least impact. Energy is the easiest AND makes the biggest impact on total emissions and climate change. Going to green energy production like wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear, and making the energy sector entirely emissions free would reset out total emissions back to over 100 years ago. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 hours ago Jist to be clear, your 80% figure for "energy" includes a lot more than electricity production, which is like 39%. You're counting natural gas use for heat, industry, and fossil fuels for transportation, in addition to electricity. Yeah obviously let's go all in on renewables but you're not representing the issue correctly here. And 3.5% is a big deal, so we'll just have to disagree on that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 hours ago Jist to be clear, your 80% figure for "energy" includes a lot more than electricity production, which is like 39%. You're counting natural gas use for heat, industry, and fossil fuels for transportation, in addition to electricity. Yeah obviously let's go all in on renewables but you're not representing the issue correctly here. And 3.5% is a big deal, so we'll just have to disagree on that. permalink fedilink source parent
all 9 comments