>>1390691>Which is why insulation is generally the very fist target of any energy efficiency push.Right. But there is a catch. There are a lot of old houses that don't have any insulation, or have shitty insulation and drafts, and those consume a lot of energy for heat or cooling. Some of them are protected by retarded heritage laws, thus retrofit is not always possible.
They should encourage people to retrofit their houses. Apparently savings in cooling and heating are not enough.
>15% of transportation emissions is a lot of emissions. Why is it unreasonable to try and reduce that? We don't need to tackle one source at a time.It is reasonable, but is not number one priority.
When they were banning CFC, they started with R-11 and R-12 first, because they were worst for ozone layer and most popular gases used in refrigeration or used as propellants. And only recently they will ban HCFC (R-22), because they are not as bad for ozone layer.
So, in this case improving efficiency of buildings and improving efficiency of electrical is more important, than dealing with transportation.
Now. About banning planes.
Planes are 5-10% of that 15% transportation CO2 emissions.
If you will ban all planes, it will reduce global CO2 emissions only by 1,5% in best case, which is nothing.
If you would reduce car emissions in half (i.e. stop 1.2 liter turbo retarded thing, that doesn't produce anything other than unreliable cars, and replace that with hybrid guts you have in Prius), you will get 3% reduction in CO2, which is still nothing, but will be more effective than banning planes, and would be somewhat painless. Though it will take around 10-15 years to achieve.
Now, I don't understand China thing. What happened in 2000? Why other regions/countries are not changing much (if you consider CO2/capita), despite having their manufacturing moved to China?
