<story><title>Global oil use heads for steepest annual contraction</title><url>https://www.worldoil.com/news/2020/3/15/global-oil-use-heads-for-steepest-annual-contraction-in-history</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>dannyw</author><text>The aviation sector currently accounts for about 2% of global emissions.&lt;p&gt;Is the ability to travel, including all the business, leisure, and cultural exchange benefits worth less than 2% of our carbon footprint?</text></item><item><author>miketery</author><text>Being a part of society implies a social contract and some social control, it’s not black and white. Right now environmental impacts are not priced into many of our products (e.g. meat) and services (e.g. travel).</text></item><item><author>creato</author><text>In the minds of people opposed to controlling CO2 emissions, your comment here justifies all of their worst fears of CO2 emission regulation as a means of social control.</text></item><item><author>hamburga</author><text>The general Western game plan right now seems to be: (1) shut down the whole nonessential part of the economy, (2) buy time to not overwhelm medical systems, (3) gradually turn the economy back on where safe.&lt;p&gt;For part (3) the general idea of &amp;quot;safe&amp;quot; has meant, allow people who are medically low-risk to return to the workplace and retail establishments. But we could see that could be expanded to also factor in carbon impact. In other words, we prioritize turning back on the low-carbon parts of the economy first, and maybe leave some high-carbon parts (international vacations) turned off or reduced for good.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>mrpopo</author><text>Air transportation is a major contributor to CO2, if you limit the scope to the people who use it. It is estimated that about 80% of the world&amp;#x27;s adults have never taken a flight, and 94% of the world&amp;#x27;s adults have not taken a flight in over a year.&lt;p&gt;So, the real picture is that this 2.5% of global CO2 emissions are caused by as few as 6% of the population, who also are incidentally the richest and bear a high personal carbon footprint in other domains than transportation.&lt;p&gt;Also please remember that the aviation sector is growing, and therefore its global contribution to GHG emissions will grow as well in the future. Discounting the carbon footprint of the aviation sector based on today&amp;#x27;s numbers is a mistake.&lt;p&gt;If you do not want to impede on your ability to travel, you shouldn&amp;#x27;t object to it for the 94% of the population that want the same thing as you, and when it becomes available to them the aviation sector&amp;#x27;s emissions will increase 15-fold.</text></comment>
<story><title>Global oil use heads for steepest annual contraction</title><url>https://www.worldoil.com/news/2020/3/15/global-oil-use-heads-for-steepest-annual-contraction-in-history</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>dannyw</author><text>The aviation sector currently accounts for about 2% of global emissions.&lt;p&gt;Is the ability to travel, including all the business, leisure, and cultural exchange benefits worth less than 2% of our carbon footprint?</text></item><item><author>miketery</author><text>Being a part of society implies a social contract and some social control, it’s not black and white. Right now environmental impacts are not priced into many of our products (e.g. meat) and services (e.g. travel).</text></item><item><author>creato</author><text>In the minds of people opposed to controlling CO2 emissions, your comment here justifies all of their worst fears of CO2 emission regulation as a means of social control.</text></item><item><author>hamburga</author><text>The general Western game plan right now seems to be: (1) shut down the whole nonessential part of the economy, (2) buy time to not overwhelm medical systems, (3) gradually turn the economy back on where safe.&lt;p&gt;For part (3) the general idea of &amp;quot;safe&amp;quot; has meant, allow people who are medically low-risk to return to the workplace and retail establishments. But we could see that could be expanded to also factor in carbon impact. In other words, we prioritize turning back on the low-carbon parts of the economy first, and maybe leave some high-carbon parts (international vacations) turned off or reduced for good.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>sixo</author><text>Is 20% of that worth 80% of the benefit?&lt;p&gt;When costs are not priced in the benefits are weighed against nothing.</text></comment>