I am disappointed at the insistence on bringing in Mr Gore and I apologize for tweaking those of you who wish to defend him personally by mentioning him in the OP.
I am interested in finding out whether or not any AGW alarmist wishes to defend flying first class. In the 737 I was flying yesterday (yes; first class) the first class seats occupied about 70% more room than coach. In round numbers–and thank you SS for the calculation above)–that means I am, for my particular seat, producing about 70% more CO2 than is necessary, for my personal convenience.
Now if I understand those who say AGW is an emergent problem requiring fixing now–that it is critical–I want to hear a defense of why this behaviour is OK.
So far the only argument I have heard is that those seats would fly empty anyway, so why not take them? The short answer to this is that while my individual choice at that moment makes no difference, the collective choice to change behaviour does, and a collective decision is the sum of individual choices. So at a moral level, what tells me what I truly Believe is what I do; not what I say.
I want to hear–without mentioning Mr Gore or without interpreting this as an attack on him (for me that’s like mocking an obese man selling diets)–whether the Chief Pedant needs to stop flying first class if the AGW alarmists here on the Dope persuade him that he needs to Believe.
If all I get are soft answers such as “Well, make your own decision…” then I admit to being unpersuaded that any AGW alarmists actually have convinced themselves that there is any crisis. AGW alarmism is simply another religion with some sort of technical belief system, the opportunity to participate in the Great Cause of proselytization, and no actual translation into behavioural change.
What, if any, is the position of the alarmist on whether or not flying first class is in opposition to the AGW alarmist construct?
Now, I don’t really give a toss about what Gore does and doesn’t do, but don’t you think that including such snide remarks about him in your posts slightly decreases your chances of keeping him out of the discussion as you ostensibly wish?
Anyway, I stand by the answer I’ve given above – that yes, it is hypocritical, and that morality can’t be shoehorned into such simple-minded all-or-nothing, black-or-white schemes. It might be better in some cases to fly first class and plant a hectare of rain forest (or whatever) than it is to stay at home doing fuck all, if the issue is really about ‘protecting the environment’, whatever that may mean; nevertheless, it is essentially hypocritical.
I don’t put sugar in my porridge so you will probably not listen to me – but I wouldn’t want to anyway, as the “AGW alarmist” scare language is poisoning the argument from the start.
I haven’t really thought about whether flying first class is enough of a priority to even mention, as there’s a possibility that focusing on that might make people feel good enough that they don’t take on the bigger issues.
If it does have a significantly deleterious effect, then of course I would ask people to try to do it less. I would also try to make sure that all of the hidden, common costs are being paid for. I suspect that they are, to a degree, to the extent that the higher ticket price is helping to pay for the extra fuel. In a similar way, I would feel that driving an SUV had less of a relative impact if we were recapturing all of its costs through gas taxes, but I have a feeling we are not.
So as long as we price the ticket properly to take into account the damage I don’t see why one should feel bad about it, again, like I keep mentioning, any moreso than one would feel bad about simply having more possessions than some other random person.
I don’t understand. People who drive SUVs buy more gas, and pay for more gasoline taxes. So why are SUVs bad?
The whole point to carbon taxes is to A) curb demand through higher taxes, and B) raise money specifically for the purpose of offsetting carbon emissions with reductions elsewhere. Just the fact that carbon emitters pay more is irrelevant - since energy costs money, they always do anyway.
IMHO, yes if you believe in global warming, flying first class makes you a hypocrite. I’d go further, any sort of transportation that releases carbon emissions (and I’m extending that to the tires on bicycles) makes you a hypocrite.
As with anything, people can try to do the best they can but they often fall short of their goal (for a variety of reasons). You’re a doctor, correct? Then that’s a lesson I’m sure your profession knows fairly well.
By your use of the word “alarmist” and your rather sad use of the caps lock key, you obviously don’t believe in global warming and have a poor opinion of those who do, so what do you get out of a question like this? What does it prove to you?
How could you have interpreted the vast majority of posters repeatedly stating that Al Gore’s personal life has no impact on the validity of AGW as people wishing to defend him personally?
You’re the one who thinks that flying first class is a major contributor to AGW. Most everyone else thinks we should be worrying about alternative energy sources.
Let me get this straight. Unless a bunch of message board people tell you to stop a behavior that we don’t think will have much of an impact on AGW, AGW doesn’t exist? Is that really what you’re saying here? Well OK. If it will make you believe. Please, please, pretty please, stop flying first class. There!
By the way, ‘AGW alarmist’ is a climate change denier term. Not very helpful in a sincere discussion on reducing greenhouse emissions.
It simply means that, by any reasonable analysis, your rhetorical opponent has no rational option but to throw himself at your feet and blubber apologies.
Well, the global warming deniers are often asking for it, as in the case of Chief Pedant starting a thread pretty much, AFAICT, for the purpose of sneering at mainstream scientific views on anthropogenic global warming as “alarmism”.
Bad analogy. I don’t dispute your right to opine that Al Gore’s energy-use choices are unjustified (I’m not sure whether I agree with your opinion, as I’d have to know more about the responsibilities and trade-offs involved for him, but you might be right), and I completely agree with you that anti-Gore voices make a lot of hay out of them to the detriment of the image of the environmental movement as a whole. But his choices aren’t analogous to conservative-morals crusaders having affairs or guy-on-guy quickies outside of marriage.
The difference is that the conservative moralists argue that extramarital affairs and homosexual sex are always wrong under any circumstances. Gore’s stated position on carbon emissions, on the other hand, is that they need to be reduced overall by means of a combination of public policy and private actions. He’s not saying that nobody under any circumstances should ever fly first class or own an SUV or have energy-inefficient windows in their house or so on and so forth, so he is not technically being overtly hypocritical in the way that the pants-dropping conservative Christian leaders are.
I’m an AGW non-denier (which seems to be essentially what you mean by “alarmist”), and I definitely agree that flying first class is a comparatively inefficient and wasteful form of transportation. Increasing the number of passengers per flight reduces per-person carbon footprint size, whereas having fewer passengers each taking up more room increases carbon footprint.
Does that mean that I think that nobody should ever fly first class, or that if they ever do then their opinions about AGW automatically become invalid? Of course not; anybody who would attempt to make such a sweeping generalization irrespective of circumstances or potential trade-offs is either stupid or else just trying to play “gotcha” with ideological opponents.
This isn’t a serious criticism on your part: it’s just an attempt to set up a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose situation. You’re trying to maneuver yourself into the position that if any AGW non-denier takes any action that fails to minimize their carbon footprint, then their opinions on AGW must not be serious and therefore you don’t have to pay any attention to them because it’s just a “religion”. Nice try, but not persuasive.
The fact is that anthropogenic climate change doesn’t depend on “belief”, on opinions, or on personal consistency of opinions with actions. It’s not some kind of debating game where you score points by cleverly nitpicking imperfections in the other side’s policies. It’s a physical phenomenon about whose fundamental causes and effects most scientists are in general agreement, although a great many factors and consequences are still imperfectly understood.
Attempting to change the subject from “what are the facts and uncertainties, and what’s the best-guess strategy to follow while the subject remains imperfectly understood?” to “the whole thing is shown to be a bunch of hogwash because many people are inconsistent or hypocritical!” is merely an exercise in distraction. The only purpose it serves is apparently to make yourself feel better about being afraid to take the prospect of anthropogenic climate change seriously.
And JFTR, I personally don’t fly first class, nor do I own a car. I live within walking/busing distance of my workplace and shopping locations, and make most of my trips by foot, bus or bike. I’m sure none of that will inspire you to modify your comforting belief that I’m just an “alarmist” enjoying a cost-free feeling of religious superiority, though.
We agree on both of these points. Part of what I was trying to say is that that’s the problem, is that in the views of many, the current taxes are not enough to take into account common costs of carbon, and that they are not being specifically directed toward environmental solutions.
So right now it would appear that the driving of SUVs unnecessarily without also purchasing valid carbon offsets or the like is indeed a minor ethical lapse (I would not call it a moral lapse because I don’t believe in morals.) Taxes on SUVs are barely enough to pay for the roads let alone the carbon emissions. (This is not to say that not shouting SUV drivers down from the rooftops makes one a hypocrite since there are always varying shades of everything.)
Whether or not First Class tickets also fall under this is a point I never considered, after all, there are certainly large sales taxes for instance associated with the purchase of first class tickets, the question is how these should be considered.
(Quick math, assume an $800 first class ticket with 5% sales tax, versus a $300 coach ticket. This is $25 the government is getting above the norm. I’m not sure what the carbon tax should be on the extra gasoline this extra large seat uses, but in a 1000-mile car trip in a fuel efficient vehicle getting 40 MPGs, carbon tax proponents have suggested that a $2 a gallon (!) surcharge be added, for a total of a $40 carbon tax on that 1000 mile trip. [a quick look at wiki show that this roughly accurately transfers over since airplanes are about as fuel efficient as the best cars per passengermile.] If we assume that each first class seat uses 50% more fuel, then it appears that the extra sales tax is almost exactly equal to what carbon tax proponents would suggest we install on fuel. )
The problem right now is that it is going toward general government rather than environmental programs. I really don’t know if we should install an extra tax on top of that, I guess I would lean towards no. All I know is that the case of SUVs is more clear cut since it’s hugely more inefficient than airplanes so a carbon tax if instituted would dwarf sales tax on the vehicle itself.
If I wanted to sneer at AGW as a science, I would do so directly. I am personally an agnostic–pretty much completely ignorant on the issue and so far unmotivated to investigate it because I cannot for the life of me figure out what good it would do–and a cynic that most of us would actually change our behaviour for the public good. We haven’t done so anywhere else, including robbing our children to pay for our current comforts. I’m uninterested in participating in a global movement to proselytize a belief that has no consequence in behavioural changes.
On the “Alarmist” front: I did not realize this was a particularly pejorative term. I mean to separate out those who feel AGW is a critical issue requiring emergency address from those who sort of accept it as a generally proven problem requiring some sort of address downstream…think missionaries evangelizing converts before the world ends as opposed to theists admitting there is a God.
I have not here, nor elsewhere, attempted to create an inference that, because AGW alarmists are hypocritical, that means AGW is false. Obviously it does not, anymore than hypocritical Christians mean there is no God. What is the case, I think, is that people who say they believe should have some sort of a construct about the consequences of such a belief. I am interested in exploring exactly what that construct is, particularly because it is my observation that the vast majority of AGW believers–alarmists and otherwise–have in fact not considered the ramifications of their belief.
So back to those ramifications–the point of my thread. Using first class as simply a prototypical practical decision point, it seems to me that if an individual cannot give up the minor convenience of flying more efficiently, they are unlikely to make any similar choices among the thousands of choices which we face all the time. And that, I think, does provide a sobering effect.
Sure, “we” should all do “something.” Just not me, if it inconveniences me in any way. It’s tons of fun to proselytize; not that much fun to stop sinning.
With respect, I think that the appropriate technical term describing your chosen position on this issue is not “agnostic” but “ignoramus”. An agnostic is somebody who feels that they do not know the answer to a question of belief on which there’s no factual basis for knowledge (e.g., the existence of God).
Anthropogenic global warming, on the other hand, is an issue on which there’s a very large factual basis for knowledge, although the knowledge is in many respects still inconclusive and uncertain. You’ve chosen not only to recognize the uncertainty of the current state of knowledge, but to deliberately remain “pretty much completely ignorant” of even those facts that are currently available. I don’t think “agnostic” is the most accurate way to describe that attitude.
Well, a standard definition of “alarmist” is “a person who tends to raise alarms, esp. without sufficient reason” (emphasis added). The term intrinsically implies that the people you’re describing probably have insufficient basis for their concerns, so I think you can see why those so described would consider it pejorative.
Hmmm. Where do you draw the line between those two categories? How far “downstream” must an AGW non-denier be willing to place efforts to address the climate change problem for you to classify them as a non-“alarmist”?
I concur with valleyofthedolls that this is an astonishingly idealistic view of human nature coming from a doctor, especially a self-described “cynical” one. Have you really never before encountered people who are genuinely persuaded that a certain course of action (smoking, drinking too much, eating too much, etc.) is bad for them, who have indeed considered “the ramifications of their belief” implying that they should change that course of action, but who nonetheless persist in that course of action anyway?
Imagining that nobody can really be genuinely worried about AGW if they fly first class seems kind of like imagining that nobody can really be genuinely convinced that smoking is bad for them if they don’t stop smoking.
I think the analogy to addictive behavior is very apt. Please refer to the Standard Dirty Fucking Hippy lecture about buggering the planet so we can have more loud, shiny crap. Don’t feel like typing it again, and you’ve all heard it. Still true.
If you take the OP argument to its logical conclusion, then if we [del]believe[/del] know that AGW is real, we should all kill ourselves, as we as biological organisms are emitting CO2 with every breath, lest we be accused of hypocrisy. But our dead bodies give off methane, another global warming gas-guess we can’t win for losing. Reductio ad absurdum.
Point is, if Gore is doing more good by crisscrossing the globe in his crusade, convincing people of the dangers etc. and getting them to change their own lifestyles and so on, than harm via any extra CO2 his modes of transportation give off, then really there’s no problem AFAICT.
OK; I’ll go with ignoramus. At some point the time will be right to investigate AGW but for me it’s not now…I’m gonna wait until the climate gets a chance to change over the longterm if no interim behaviour modification is expected. What’s the rush if I can wait until something becomes illegal? And it ain’t going to be illegal anytime soon, near as I can predict, to engage in all of the behaviours that have created a consumption-oriented society which, in turn, indulged itself at the cost of cooking gaia.
I like that smoking analogy, btw. Of course we can be worried about the result of our behaviour and persist in it. A non-ignoramus accepts that smoking is bad for you and that you should not smoke. And that, Kimstu, is exactly what I’m asking:
Are AGW alarmists worried about the predilection to put our personal comfort and convenience above the (presumably) more important concern that the world is burning up? They are only gonna be worried if they think it is wrong.
I am staggered at how hard it seems to be for AGW alarmists to admit that their belief requires them to change their personal indulgences in order to remain consistent with their AGW construct. Now if they just want to say, “Yep; it’s wrong but I’m gonna do it anyway,” fine. I want to know if it’s wrong–as a case example (but substitute a thousand other elective indulgences)–to fly first class.
And if it’s not wrong, why not when there is absolutely no defense for it other than “I am putting me in front of the needs of the world”?
I specifically chose this example because there is absolutely no arguable benefit to flying comfortably other than pure self indulgence. Safety; convenience of travel; time;–nothing. It makes for a very neat case comparison.
It’s a useless comparison. The net effect on CO2 emissions is the same if Al Gore flies coach or first class or paddles a dinghy across the Atlantic ocean, as has been pointed out numerous times.
I suggest that it is more moral for Al Gore to travel internationally giving speeches about global warming than it is for him to minimize his personal carbon footprint, just as it is for Bill Gates to keep making tons of money and giving half of it away rather than giving it all away and living as a pauper.
Wait a minute - in Al Gore’s case, the hypocrisy goes a lot deeper than flying first class. Al tends to travel in a frickin’ Gulfstream. In so doing, his trip to Copenhagen will burn 8600 gallons of fuel!
So let’s recap:
Staying home and attending by teleconference: 0 gallons of fuel.
Traveling coach: 129 gallons of fuel.
Traveling first class: 386 gallons of fuel
Travel form chosen by the savior of the planet: 8600 gallons of fuel.
This isn’t like Jim Bakker having an affair on the side. It’s more like Jim Bakker preaching about marital fidelity and abstinence while being double-teamed on the pulpit by two co-eds.
His behavior should be embarrassing to his followers.
I find both of these terms, “alarmist” and “denier”, unhelpful. They are both emotionally loaded with negative overtones. May I suggest the use of “AGW supporter” and “AGW skeptic” as more neutral terms?
I found this claim quite surprising. Do you mean that all of them are small compared to total emissions? Because flying a Gulfstream and paddling definitely do not have the “same net effect on CO2 emissions”. What am I missing here?
Much like the Democrats suddenly caring about corruption in the past decade or so, this thread has warmed my heart to think that those that normally wonder if we should even do anything about global warming suddenly want to take an absolute moral stance against doing anything that would remotely harm the environment.
Unfortunately, their newfound passion takes the form of the old conservative absolutism: thou shalt not take any plastic bags, tis a sin. No middle ground at all.
How can I argue with such fervent environmental crusaders, stuck in your ivory towers? Later.
I don’t recall that from his movie.