Air New Zealand has abandoned a 2030 goal to cut its carbon emissions, blaming difficulties securing more efficient planes and sustainable jet fuel.

The move makes it the first major carrier to back away from such a climate target.

The airline added it is working on a new short-term target and it remains committed to an industry-wide goal of achieving net zero emissions by 2050.

The aviation industry is estimated to produce around 2% of global carbon dioxide emissions, which airlines have been trying to reduce with measures including replacing older aircraft and using fuel from renewable sources.

  • spongebue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    A bottle of spirit would cost the same as a bottle of cola if the government would not interfere

    Sorry, how do you figure? Cola is basically water, sugar, and flavorings/colorings. Mix it together, carbonate it, put it in a bottle, and ship it out. Super easy to scale up. Whiskey (for example) involves mashing grain, fermenting it to get alcohol, distilling that alcohol to get it more concentrated and less watery, aging it in a barrel for a number of years, and then bottling it and shipping it out. Each step involves big, specialized equipment (harder to scale up) and many involve losing product along the way. And yet, it’s because of government? Sure, there are higher taxes on alcohol and that contributes to the difference, but to blame it entirely on government is ridiculous.

    • Frans VeldmanA
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      I could give a long description about the process to make the sugar needed to make cola, and then describe whiskey as essentially just water and alcohol, and some flavors. Then there is that other kind of alcohol, methanol, for cleaning windows etc, usually sold in percentages over 80%. How much does that cost per liter? I stand my ground that spirits could be sold for about the same price as soda, if it would not be taxed with special exise, duty, tax, or whatever the special “alcohol tax” is called in your country. Which is exactly the reason that in practically every country alcoholic drinks are made artificially more expensive.

      • spongebue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        So it’s actually a lot more involved to make spirits when you don’t want to go blind over it, especially if you want it to taste good as well.

        US taxes spirits at $13.50 per proof gallon at most (like income taxes, there are different margins). That means a gallon of 100 proof (50% alcohol by volume) alcohol spirits has a tax rate of $13.50. A 750ml bottle is .198 gallons, and .198*$13.50 is $2.67.

        So… You sure about that?

    • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Whiskey (for example) involves mashing grain, fermenting it to get alcohol, distilling that alcohol to get it more concentrated and less watery, aging it in a barrel for a number of years, and then bottling it and shipping it out.

      If the government would not interfere, most companies would just label watered down cleaning alcohol as whiskey and sell you that. Point is that there are cost-increasing measures on alcoholic drink production from the govt beyond taxes.

      • spongebue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I understand your point, but the original claim was that spirits and cola could be the same price. My argument was that spirits have a much more involved manufacturing process which raises the price. In my opinion, watered down cleaning alcohol has a different manufacturing process and wouldn’t count - whether government prohibits it or not. It’s a different product, made a different way, so of course it’s going to have a different cost.

        Thinking of it another way, and trying to play devil’s advocate against myself to think this through, what if government said that cola needed to come with a side of premium caviar? It would raise the cost, and government would have caused it, but it would also be a different product. That doesn’t mean that if you got rid of government regulation, cola with a side of caviar would cost the same as cola without caviar, spirits, or diluted cleaning alcohol. It just means that the regulation alone wasn’t what made it expensive, because there are intrinsic manufacturing costs regardless.

        • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Yeah, and I’m not disputing your point beyond that “no regulations” would be weirdly bad, not just normally bad.