What if we just stop traveling by air?

[tacokick]

Jan 3, 2024 10:08:49 GMT -5 beetea said:

LOL. I was in college in the mid-90s. We knew to ditch the Aquanet because that was destroying the ozone layer and recycle newspapers, but air travel was still desirable and "fancy.”.

It might have been seen as desirable and fancy but it was also big, widespread news that it was bad for the environment.

I think the rise of low cost airlines helped people forget that fact but this is in no way some new concern.

[pixy0stix]

Pollution may not have been linked to climate change in the 90s, but it was still in the news as pollution. (I was also in college in the mid-90s.) If people tell me they didn't know about the dangers of pollution during the 90s I'm going to call you a liar.

[aurora]

Human-caused climate change has been a well-accepted fact for a long time, and in fact was considered far less controversial in the U.S. in the 1980s and 1990s before powerful business forces worked to sway public opinion so they could make more money.

For this and other topics, Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway is an excellent history of how this influence changed perceptions.

[aurora]

That said, stopping or reducing air travel is just one of the ways individuals can make a difference. All of the other things (having fewer children, eating less meat, driving less, buying less stuff, insulating our homes, and many others) also matter.

[tacokick]

Jan 3, 2024 13:05:31 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Pollution may not have been linked to climate change in the 90s, but it was still in the news as pollution. (I was also in college in the mid-90s.) If people tell me they didn't know about the dangers of pollution during the 90s I'm going to call you a liar.

Seriously! It was no mystery

Here is a 1989 article from the LA Times

“Global Warming Is Expected to Be the Hot Issue of 1990s.”

www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-10-29-mn-194-story.html

“ The greenhouse effect theory has been around for two centuries, but it suddenly started making headlines during the hot, dry summer of 1988. The idea is that certain gases in the atmosphere act like the glass on a greenhouse. They let sunlight in, but won’t let its heat out. The biggest villain is carbon dioxide, which is released when fossil fuels such as oil or coal are burned.”

[minzy]

I think the bit about air travel is its outsized individual impact. That is, if you were to say, what is the most harmful thing I can do to the environment in an afternoon, it’s not tossing a plastic bag into landfilled trash or leaving the lights on or getting a new shirt or even eating steak for dinner, it’s getting on an airplane. It’s basically the quickest way to blast lots of carbon emissions into the atmosphere at one time. Our feelings or the merit for the travel make no difference about the emissions, they’re still happening. We don’t want to accept that because it’s uncomfortable. I hate that reality and am deeply uncomfortable with it. Yes, we knew this way back when, but a deeper, more thorough understanding of this and seeing the problems unfold in real time in the last several years has caused me at least to alter my behavior (although unfortunately not entirely).

I also hate that the irony of my having a little time to think and type about this right now, despite following this thread for days, is because I have chosen not to drive (with several stops to charge) but to fly six hours away and I have a few extra minutes at the gate. I am the problem and the problem is me. Damnit.

I always appreciate you leading and advancing the conversation pixy.

[aurora]

I think we talked about this study years ago when it came out, but there's a neat chart comparing impacts of individual decisions in this article:

www.lunduniversity.lu.se/article/four-lifestyle-choices-most-reduce-your-carbon-footprint

The study concluded that the most impactful decisions individuals can make are (in order)

1. Have one fewer child
2. Live car free
3. Avoid one roundtrip transatlantic flight
4. Buy green energy

The catch is that #1 is about 20x more impactful than #2. (#2-4 are a lot closer to each other)

I definitely agree that air travel is a concentrated form of climate pollution (obviously in time, since planes are very fast, but also by inserting the pollution directly into the atmosphere). I just think that we should all be thinking about many of these things, not only air travel.

[noodleoo]

Jan 3, 2024 11:10:06 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Jan 3, 2024 10:48:07 GMT -5 noodleoo said:

I'd be interested in what the breakdown of reasons for flying are, and especially by distance. People seem to focusing on flying to visit family, but I think business travel is probably a much larger percentage of air traffic than that. And I agree that most people I know who fly are doing it for pleasure vacations, not family. Those trips tend to be to further destinations too: Hawaii, Europe, Carribean, Costa Rica, etc, etc.

Both Times and Forbes used this source to state that business travel accounts for 12% of flights - www.pwc.com/us/en/industries/consumer-markets/library/corporate-travel-collaboration-essential-for-covid-19-recovery.html

ETA: I'm including the Times article from 2021 because travel rebounded MUCH more than what they were talking about in the article - time.com/6108331/business-travel-decline-covid-19/

Wow, I'm shocked it is only 12%!  My global company has people flying domestically weekly and often transcontinental (US to Asia or US to Europe) several times a year.  

Now I really want to know what the other 88% is.  It can't all be personal vacations!  I actually wonder how much of it is cargo/shipping.  How many of those flights are Amazon, Fedex and UPS?  Once again getting back to the idea that excessive consumerism is a huge issue.

[emilyj]

Jan 3, 2024 15:05:03 GMT -5 noodleoo said:

Jan 3, 2024 11:10:06 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Both Times and Forbes used this source to state that business travel accounts for 12% of flights - www.pwc.com/us/en/industries/consumer-markets/library/corporate-travel-collaboration-essential-for-covid-19-recovery.html

ETA: I'm including the Times article from 2021 because travel rebounded MUCH more than what they were talking about in the article - time.com/6108331/business-travel-decline-covid-19/

Wow, I'm shocked it is only 12%!  My global company has people flying domestically weekly and often transcontinental (US to Asia or US to Europe) several times a year.  

Now I really want to know what the other 88% is.  It can't all be personal vacations!  I actually wonder how much of it is cargo/shipping.  How many of those flights are Amazon, Fedex and UPS?  Once again getting back to the idea that excessive consumerism is a huge issue.

I'm shocked it's only 12% too.

I travel as part of my job. If I want to get promoted (and I do want that), conferences are a mandatory part of the promotion process. I have a conference in March in LA...and I currently live on the east coast. I get $2k for conference travel per year. I just looked at what it would take to train there...3 days one way, and to get anything with a sleeper (which, I'm sorry, but I'm not sitting in a seat for 3 straight days and sleeping in an upright seat), it would exceed my conference budget...and that's before hotel, per diem for meals, registration fees, etc.

I love the train. I'm super psyched to be back in the Northeast where I can easily take Amtrak to the major cities here, or home to see my parents. Not having to drive up to NYC? Yes please. 

I'm just trying to picture the look on my dean's face if I told him I was doing LA by train, needed more travel money, and would need 6 travel days for a 3 day conference. And truly, if I were able to take the train? I work a hybrid schedule now. There is absolutely no reason I couldn't 'work from home' those 6 days if the train had wifi. That should be the case for any business traveller.

I have no idea how to get companies (and universities) to go for that though. 

[AJL]

Jan 3, 2024 15:03:11 GMT -5 aurora said:

The study concluded that the most impactful decisions individuals can make are (in order)

1. Have one fewer child
2. Live car free
3. Avoid one roundtrip transatlantic flight
4. Buy green energy

The catch is that #1 is about 20x more impactful than #2. (#2-4 are a lot closer to each other)

I definitely agree that air travel is a concentrated form of climate pollution (obviously in time, since planes are very fast, but also by inserting the pollution directly into the atmosphere). I just think that we should all be thinking about many of these things, not only air travel.

1. Too late now. But I'm not having anymore kids, so that's a plus.
2. Live car free -- I WOULD LOVE TO. I also live in a city, in a state where environmentally concerned and conscious infrastructure planning is not a priority. Our city has made some parts much more car-free friendly, but we have a terribly public transportation system and not a lot of walkable areas. I would be happy to take the bus (our main form of public transit) but there is no stop near where I live or work. I could move or get a new job, but that seems more expensive and disruptive than not having a car. We do try very much to combine trips as much as possible so that we're not driving as much. DH also works from home 3 days a week.
3. Easy! I've been on one transatlantic roundtrip flight in my life. It was crazy expensive. I don't think I'll be doing it again anytime soon (though I'd really like to).
4. I need more education on what exactly is meant by "green energy" and how to take advantage of that on a consumer level. Is it things like investing in solar panels for our home? Driving an EV vs a combustion engine vehicle?

[Deleted]

Jan 3, 2024 6:30:56 GMT -5 tacokick said:

Jan 3, 2024 2:16:30 GMT -5 sillygoosegirl said:

I do mostly agree with you, but I think a lot of us made these decisions a long time ago when we were unaware of the environmental cost of the travel. I know I did. Definitely shouldn't have met and fallen in love with a man from so far from home. Cannot realistically move either family. They'd rather just not see us anymore than move (too many of them, too deep of roots, too many other responsibilities). We did choose to move to be near one family, but moving to be near both would have pretty much required the foresight to get married to different people. Ultimately this dilemma goes back to decisions we made when we weren't even adults yet, and nobody was talking about the environmental impact of air travel. (The people I knew back then were talking about climate change lots and lots, vary serious about limiting personal emitions, active in the community about getting the word out and fighting for changes, but were blissfully unaware of just how impactful flying was.)

It's way harder to unravel than simply moving near the bus line or train station or work or the city.

@@@
I will definitely encourage different decisions in this regard for the next generation than my parents did for me. Sure, it sounds romantic to move far away for college, but there are great colleges all over the place. And if you go to school locally, you are more likely to be able to get a job locally. You are in turn more likely to meet and marry someone from the same geographic region, etc. And not create this situation.

We’ve known about the impact of air travel for a long time. I’m sure a lot of people were unaware and still are but we talked about greenhouse gas and how airplanes contributed to global warming when I was in middle school in the early 1990s.It was on the news a lot then and not politicized the way it is now. Even in elementary school not a week went by without an environmental story in the Weekly Reader. I can still picture all those ozone layer diagrams.

We made the decision to live where we wouldn’t have to fly to see family 19 years ago.

I’m honestly not sure how someone who was concerned about the environment and global warming could be blissfully unaware of the impact of airplanes. Just on the level of thinking for a second about the massive amount of fuel planes use and how much time is spent in the air just circling airports waiting to land should register that it’s not great. Someone with concerns about personal emissions wouldn’t be gassing up and idling their car for hours—why would planes be different?

We are at the point where people need to decide to move closer to people they want to see or accept not seeing them as often. If family would rather not see me than move and I don’t want to move to them, I wouldn’t prioritize air travel to see them either. My ILs talked about moving out west off and on for years and we were very upfront that we would not see them with any frequency at all if the only option was plane travel. They accepted that and ultimately decided to stay where they were.

I do think the impact of the shift from the 1970s on to pushing going to college period and to
going away to college in general culture isn’t talked about enough. The student loan crisis and like you said, people living far from where they grew up and meeting people who are also far from “home” now seem to travel so much which adds to global warming. Lots of ripples there.

College enrollment has been dropping since about 2010 and I was interested to see if there was also a drop in people moving so far from home but I couldn’t pull up anything.

And of course, a lot of plane travel is just recreational. I didn’t know anyone who flew anywhere growing up with any regularity (or at all, really) and it still surprises me how often people fly for a weekend getaway. I can’t say I’ve never flown but we’ve always done it rarely and waited until we could maximize our time at the location. We chose to live in an area with a lot to do with easy access to other areas with even more to do.

I completely agree that people need to cut way back on air travel (and air mail/air cargo).

But planes do not routinely circle waiting to land. Our air traffic system is more advanced than that. Planes sometimes have to pass over an airfield for 10ish miles before turning around to get on the correct approach path, but air traffic control is capable of sequencing planes so they don’t routinely have to circle. The only time they’d have to circle is if there’s bad weather and planes can’t land, so many planes are in one place at the same time (they get stacked in holding, then sequenced in). And holding burns MUCH less fuel than going in a straight line because the pilots are specifically not trying to fly fast (and there are maximum holding speeds).

[tacokick]

Jan 3, 2024 19:36:51 GMT -5 @villainv said:

Jan 3, 2024 6:30:56 GMT -5 tacokick said:

We’ve known about the impact of air travel for a long time. I’m sure a lot of people were unaware and still are but we talked about greenhouse gas and how airplanes contributed to global warming when I was in middle school in the early 1990s.It was on the news a lot then and not politicized the way it is now. Even in elementary school not a week went by without an environmental story in the Weekly Reader. I can still picture all those ozone layer diagrams.

We made the decision to live where we wouldn’t have to fly to see family 19 years ago.

I’m honestly not sure how someone who was concerned about the environment and global warming could be blissfully unaware of the impact of airplanes. Just on the level of thinking for a second about the massive amount of fuel planes use and how much time is spent in the air just circling airports waiting to land should register that it’s not great. Someone with concerns about personal emissions wouldn’t be gassing up and idling their car for hours—why would planes be different?

We are at the point where people need to decide to move closer to people they want to see or accept not seeing them as often. If family would rather not see me than move and I don’t want to move to them, I wouldn’t prioritize air travel to see them either. My ILs talked about moving out west off and on for years and we were very upfront that we would not see them with any frequency at all if the only option was plane travel. They accepted that and ultimately decided to stay where they were.

I do think the impact of the shift from the 1970s on to pushing going to college period and to
going away to college in general culture isn’t talked about enough. The student loan crisis and like you said, people living far from where they grew up and meeting people who are also far from “home” now seem to travel so much which adds to global warming. Lots of ripples there.

College enrollment has been dropping since about 2010 and I was interested to see if there was also a drop in people moving so far from home but I couldn’t pull up anything.

And of course, a lot of plane travel is just recreational. I didn’t know anyone who flew anywhere growing up with any regularity (or at all, really) and it still surprises me how often people fly for a weekend getaway. I can’t say I’ve never flown but we’ve always done it rarely and waited until we could maximize our time at the location. We chose to live in an area with a lot to do with easy access to other areas with even more to do.

I completely agree that people need to cut way back on air travel (and air mail/air cargo).

But planes do not routinely circle waiting to land. Our air traffic system is more advanced than that. Planes sometimes have to pass over an airfield for 10ish miles before turning around to get on the correct approach path, but air traffic control is capable of sequencing planes so they don’t routinely have to circle. The only time they’d have to circle is if there’s bad weather and planes can’t land, so many planes are in one place at the same time (they get stacked in holding, then sequenced in). And holding burns MUCH less fuel than going in a straight line because the pilots are specifically not trying to fly fast (and there are maximum holding speeds).

Yeah, that was just an example of an easy association for people to make about burning fuel/pollution that would relate to someone’s every day life. When planes can’t land and have to circle, it often ends up on the news because it is part of the story about weather and/or airport issues so people are aware of the phenomena even if they, themselves, aren’t flying. I wouldn’t think most people know much about planes in general but I’ve heard many people make that connection as a little aha moment.

[neverfstop]

Related Gas is now under $3 a gallon across most of America www.axios.com/2024/01/03/gas-prices-usa-national-average

I get that people want cheap gas, but compared to worldwide or European costs, it's too low. I favor higher gas taxes, but also know how regressive it is towards lower income people & hate that it would impact them most. Maybe more of a luxury vehicle tax plus a mileage tax to make the true costs of work

Now that I'm thinking, how about just a larger flat consumption and/or luxury tax?

[laurack]

Jan 5, 2024 8:31:53 GMT -5 neverfstop said:

Related Gas is now under $3 a gallon across most of America www.axios.com/2024/01/03/gas-prices-usa-national-average

I get that people want cheap gas, but compared to worldwide or European costs, it's too low. I favor higher gas taxes, but also know how regressive it is towards lower income people & hate that it would impact them most. Maybe more of a luxury vehicle tax plus a mileage tax to make the true costs of work

Now that I'm thinking, how about just a larger flat consumption and/or luxury tax?

Not sure about elsewhere but in my state excise tax is paid based on the value of the vehicle, so if you do buy an 80k luxury vehicle you’ll pay the sales tax of 5k when you register it then 2k for the excise tax which will be yearly but of course go down over time.

I think a system like this is fair as those driving cheaper cars will pay a lot less. I suppose it could be increased or like start doubling after the 50k mark or something.

[audette]

Vehicle taxes and registration fees are substantial in other parts of the world, just not as much in North America. Tie those costs to vehicle value, and that might make it less regressive than gas taxes alone.

[onthemove]

How about basing the tax on the mpg of the vehicle.

[wildrice]

Jan 5, 2024 13:34:11 GMT -5 onthemove said:

How about basing the tax on the mpg of the vehicle.

I would be for this, except it would penalize people who have less ability to buy newer or hybrid/electric cars. I guess I would be ok with it if we're talking strictly new car sales though! 

[mrsukyankee]

Jan 5, 2024 8:31:53 GMT -5 neverfstop said:

Related Gas is now under $3 a gallon across most of America www.axios.com/2024/01/03/gas-prices-usa-national-average

I get that people want cheap gas, but compared to worldwide or European costs, it's too low. I favor higher gas taxes, but also know how regressive it is towards lower income people & hate that it would impact them most. Maybe more of a luxury vehicle tax plus a mileage tax to make the true costs of work

Now that I'm thinking, how about just a larger flat consumption and/or luxury tax?

This is why most people in Europe drive smaller vehicles (on average) compared to the US. Right now the cheapest gas in my area of London is about £6.40 per gallon. And our prices are cheaper than a lot of places in Europe.

[basilosaurus]

Jan 5, 2024 8:31:53 GMT -5 neverfstop said:

Related Gas is now under $3 a gallon across most of America www.axios.com/2024/01/03/gas-prices-usa-national-average

I get that people want cheap gas, but compared to worldwide or European costs, it's too low. I favor higher gas taxes, but also know how regressive it is towards lower income people & hate that it would impact them most. Maybe more of a luxury vehicle tax plus a mileage tax to make the true costs of work

Now that I'm thinking, how about just a larger flat consumption and/or luxury tax?

Mileage taxes could also be regressive. For many they do not have the ability to live closer to work. It would be ok for mcmansion suburban hell maybe, but it would have been hell for me with my first out of college job where I had to travel throughout the state. There was no close to work option due to the nature of the work.

I have lived in a state where the annual tax was based on the value of the car. My first year there it was something like $25. Then I got a new car, pretty modestly priced (around 20k), and it jumped above $500. I was not prepared for that! That's the only thing I could see that wouldn't be regressive.

I believe in most places the per gallon tax accounts for mpg and miles traveled. 

[kirra]

Jan 1, 2024 15:57:49 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Your travel may well come at the expense of your life.

It's really hard to have these discussions when people can't grasp the sheer ramifications of their actions.

I lurk on this board because of the climate discussions. It is hard to understand the ramifications - like a car. Is it better for the climate for me to keep my car (2010 Corolla that has less than 75k miles on it and gets between 25-35 mpg depending on where I’m driving) or to get a hybrid or electric car? Financially, keeping the car I have is the better choice, and I’m planning on driving it until it dies. But I really don’t know whether a hybrid or electric car would be better for the climate - I understand why they are better and that’s what I’ll buy when my car dies, but doesn’t building and buying that new car also have climate impacts? Especially since I don’t drive that much compared to most ppl I know - I got this car in college, it’s my only car, and it still has less than 75k on it.

@ Climate change isn’t a topic I hear about IRL. I did have one friend who talked about it, but it ended our friendship because she justified her having multiple kids as a “need” (I’m CFNBC) but me using individually packaged sterile gauze to clean cuts at my doctor’s direction was “destroying the planet.” She wasn’t wrong about the gauze packaging being destructive, but she could have chosen something else to criticize me about - instead of saying I was destroying the planet by using embroidery floss (a shared hobby) she chose the medical need that didn’t apply to her life.

I’ve been on a few short flights (maybe a dozen counting each flight separately - not round trips) and except for the one trip in college they were all to access medical care that did save my life, so I’d absolutely do it again, but that choice was good for me individually but bad for the climate as a whole.

[wawa]

Jan 6, 2024 23:16:14 GMT -5 kirra said:

Jan 1, 2024 15:57:49 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Your travel may well come at the expense of your life.

It's really hard to have these discussions when people can't grasp the sheer ramifications of their actions.

I lurk on this board because of the climate discussions. It is hard to understand the ramifications - like a car. Is it better for the climate for me to keep my car (2010 Corolla that has less than 75k miles on it and gets between 25-35 mpg depending on where I’m driving) or to get a hybrid or electric car? Financially, keeping the car I have is the better choice, and I’m planning on driving it until it dies. But I really don’t know whether a hybrid or electric car would be better for the climate - I understand why they are better and that’s what I’ll buy when my car dies, but doesn’t building and buying that new car also have climate impacts? Especially since I don’t drive that much compared to most ppl I know - I got this car in college, it’s my only car, and it still has less than 75k on it.

@ Climate change isn’t a topic I hear about IRL. I did have one friend who talked about it, but it ended our friendship because she justified her having multiple kids as a “need” (I’m CFNBC) but me using individually packaged sterile gauze to clean cuts at my doctor’s direction was “destroying the planet.” She wasn’t wrong about the gauze packaging being destructive, but she could have chosen something else to criticize me about - instead of saying I was destroying the planet by using embroidery floss (a shared hobby) she chose the medical need that didn’t apply to her life.

I’ve been on a few short flights (maybe a dozen counting each flight separately - not round trips) and except for the one trip in college they were all to access medical care that did save my life, so I’d absolutely do it again, but that choice was good for me individually but bad for the climate as a whole.

Short answer is that it very much depends on a lot of factors, but given the factors you've laid out here my gut that nerds out on life cycle assessment says it's probably better for you to keep your current car for longer. Manufacturing is a significant part of the life cycle impact of a new car. Like...1/3ish for full electric I think. If you're not driving much anyway the delta between them during the use phase would be reduced for you.

[kirra]

Jan 7, 2024 9:28:57 GMT -5 wawa said:

Jan 6, 2024 23:16:14 GMT -5 kirra said:

I lurk on this board because of the climate discussions. It is hard to understand the ramifications - like a car. Is it better for the climate for me to keep my car (2010 Corolla that has less than 75k miles on it and gets between 25-35 mpg depending on where I’m driving) or to get a hybrid or electric car? Financially, keeping the car I have is the better choice, and I’m planning on driving it until it dies. But I really don’t know whether a hybrid or electric car would be better for the climate - I understand why they are better and that’s what I’ll buy when my car dies, but doesn’t building and buying that new car also have climate impacts? Especially since I don’t drive that much compared to most ppl I know - I got this car in college, it’s my only car, and it still has less than 75k on it.

@ Climate change isn’t a topic I hear about IRL. I did have one friend who talked about it, but it ended our friendship because she justified her having multiple kids as a “need” (I’m CFNBC) but me using individually packaged sterile gauze to clean cuts at my doctor’s direction was “destroying the planet.” She wasn’t wrong about the gauze packaging being destructive, but she could have chosen something else to criticize me about - instead of saying I was destroying the planet by using embroidery floss (a shared hobby) she chose the medical need that didn’t apply to her life.

I’ve been on a few short flights (maybe a dozen counting each flight separately - not round trips) and except for the one trip in college they were all to access medical care that did save my life, so I’d absolutely do it again, but that choice was good for me individually but bad for the climate as a whole.

Short answer is that it very much depends on a lot of factors, but given the factors you've laid out here my gut that nerds out on life cycle assessment says it's probably better for you to keep your current car for longer. Manufacturing is a significant part of the life cycle impact of a new car. Like...1/3ish for full electric I think. If you're not driving much anyway the delta between them during the use phase would be reduced for you.

I’ve really wondered, but switching to completely electric would at least double my driving mileage because there isn’t a public charger near me yet, and I rent.I’m fortunate to have an apt about 5 miles from my work, so I really don’t drive much. My car’s gas tank is 12 gallons, and I fill it up every 6 weeks on average.

[aurora]

Jan 7, 2024 10:33:12 GMT -5 kirra said:

Jan 7, 2024 9:28:57 GMT -5 wawa said:

Short answer is that it very much depends on a lot of factors, but given the factors you've laid out here my gut that nerds out on life cycle assessment says it's probably better for you to keep your current car for longer. Manufacturing is a significant part of the life cycle impact of a new car. Like...1/3ish for full electric I think. If you're not driving much anyway the delta between them during the use phase would be reduced for you.

I’ve really wondered, but switching to completely electric would at least double my driving mileage because there isn’t a public charger near me yet, and I rent.I’m fortunate to have an apt about 5 miles from my work, so I really don’t drive much. My car’s gas tank is 12 gallons, and I fill it up every 6 weeks on average.

Without actually doing any math, I agree with wawa that you're likely better off keeping your current car. Embodied energy is substantial for cars, and having to drive more to charge your electric vehicle would definitely not help (in addition to your not driving much at all).

FWIW, I still have my 11-year-old gas car and plan to keep it until it is unreliable, at which point I assume I'll get an EV. Based on my own analysis of my situation (including things like mileage and #of miles I drive) I think it's the Earth-friendly decision.