News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A passenger aircraft that flies around the world at Mach ... by londons_explore on Tuesday April 04, 2023 @08:20AM (#35438410)
Don't apply eco-morals to someone else's business plan. It doesn't scale - if something is profitable, there will always be someone doing it behind closed doors.

Instead, work to change the regulatory environment so that a non-eco business plan isn't profitable.

That most likely means carbon taxes, carbon caps, or carbon trading.

Re:A passenger aircraft that flies around the world at Mach ... by SamBam on Tuesday April 04, 2023 @08:29AM (#35438518)
> Don't apply eco-morals to someone else's business plan.

> Instead, work to change the regulatory environment so that a non-eco business plan isn't profitable.

Huh? But the first step in identifying which regulations to put in is to apply "eco-morals," as you call them.

Re:A passenger aircraft that flies around the world at Mach ... by vlovich123 on Tuesday April 04, 2023 @08:25AM (#35438479)
Carbon taxes yes. Provides a direct incentive to get off carbon and those taxes should be invested directly into meaningful alternatives. Difficult to figure out what the pricing actually should be.

Carbon caps maybe but it might cripple industry as opposed to taxes which just become priced in. Maybe start with carbon caps 20% higher than today’s levels and bring them down over time. Still, unclear how to enact it. Is it per industry? How do you define that industry? What about companies in multiple industries? Is it for a single country? The price of carbon might sky rocket and you’ll get weird secondary effects like making oil companies richer yet.

Carbon trading no. I used to think it was an interesting idea to explore but it’s extremely difficult to avoid scams: well I was going to clear cut a forest, but I didn’t so now I get carbon credits. Or “donate $X while flying to offset your emissions” and it’s completely unclear where that $X actually goes (not to mention you’ve still emitted carbon and that $x hasn’t necessarily lowered carbon utilization somewhere else nor led to extra carbon sequestration.

I think ultimately we need a carbon tax that subsidizes creation of more green energy capacity from sources like solar, wind, nuclear (~30%) + long distance power distribution (HVDC) and investment in startups doing sequestration or making nuclear even cheaper (~70%).

Re:A passenger aircraft that flies around the world at Mach ... by pjc50 on Tuesday April 04, 2023 @08:33AM (#35438589)
Jet fuel's global tax exemption, which dates from 1944 before affordable air travel, really has to end. Despite IATA lobbying. https://www.iata.org/contentassets/ebdba50e57194019930d72722...
Re:A passenger aircraft that flies around the world at Mach ... by midasuni on Tuesday April 04, 2023 @08:41AM (#35438687)
Something the EU could trivially implement - but rather than taxing the fuel directly, tax the fuel

Countries like the U.K. already charge poor tax on airlines - fly 20 people from london to paris in a 747 and you pay far less tax than than flying 100 people on an a319, despite causing far more pollution.

Instead charge based on the length of flight the the efficiency of the plane, regardless of how many people are actually on.

You’ll probably have to cap the tax on longer flights east otherwise everyone would transfer via Istanbul or ME3, but it wouldn’t require taxing fuel, or having airlines fuel up at the other end

Re:A passenger aircraft that flies around the world at Mach ... by JumpCrisscross on Tuesday April 04, 2023 @09:04AM (#35438972)
> rather than taxing the fuel directly, tax the fuel

Did you mean “tax the flying”?

Re:A passenger aircraft that flies around the world at Mach ... by londons_explore on Tuesday April 04, 2023 @08:42AM (#35438697)
Even without an agreement to not tax jet fuel, few economies would have an incentive to tax jet fuel.

There are big benefits to being global transit hubs. Cheaper fuel is one way to become that.

Re:A passenger aircraft that flies around the world at Mach ... by namdnay on Tuesday April 04, 2023 @08:25AM (#35438469)
I don’t follow your argument - yes of course, the only way to put a stop to this madness is by global legislation, but that shouldn’t stop us naming and shaming those who keep doing it in the meanwhile.

If slave labour is legal in North Korea that doesn’t mean we can’t criticise someone posting in hacker news about their new startup that will offshore UI testing to Pyongyang slave workshops