Reducing CO2 emissions by 75% will be painful, right?

Wrong.

BTW, I don’t think Quiggin is clear on this point: he’s not saying that “we” ((You like those quotes Gabriel?)) have to pressure airlines to upgrade their fleets or “we” have to start planning fewer but longer vacations. He’s saying that more expensive fuels will make airplane trips more expensive. Period. Full stop. Now, because prices happen to be powerful motivators, this *could* induce fleet upgrades or changes in vacation frequency/durations. His point in the end, though, is that these changes in behavior don’t have to be that drastic and they won’t be nearly as drastic as you might expect with the scary sounding “75% decrease in CO2 emissions”.

So fuel price changes induce not-so-painful behavior changes. What causes the fuel prices to go up?

“We” ((Isn’t this the same “we” as the one above?)) institute carbon taxes in one form or other.

2 thoughts on “Reducing CO2 emissions by 75% will be painful, right?”

  1. Neat comments over there about telecommuting as well. Seems silly to hurl an 1100kg car at freeway speeds just to ship a 75kg body carrying 1.5kg of gray matter so a manager can look at someone’s .5kg face for 10 cumulative minutes every day.

Comments are closed.