You’re defending people’s mobility and saying we need more alternative means to do it, no problem with that, the alternatives don’t exist at the moment so unless you’re against mobility as it’s done now until we find better solutions then you’re in favor of the destruction of the environment in order to not disrupt the status quo.
People don’t get to “enjoy the world” without a thought about the environmental impact that comes with it at the moment. For there to be a world to enjoy, people need to stop taking planes and as long as they take planes then alternatives won’t be developed.
I mean, trains exist, they’re just not the best in the US.
You also seemed to be okay with driving, which startled me but is definitively a viable alternative in almost all cases.
Given some of your other comments, I think I’m gonna take it as a “no” on the “telling the difference between travel at any cost and being more mad at systems and those who control them than individuals” question.
When you look at fuel economy per passenger a small car with two passengers and a huge truck with four passengers both beat air travel in a plane full of passengers (about 4L/100km/passenger for the plane, which is easy to beat in a car). Add to that the fact that planes don’t have the equivalent of a catalytic converter and that emissions at altitude are about twice as damaging… Well, traveling by car is the environmental decision when the alternative is taking a plane, especially for shorter trips as planes waste a ton of fuel for takeoff and landing.
Some people want to travel at any cost, I’m saying they should learn to travel close to home because traveling around the world has a huge environmental impact.
You’re defending people’s mobility and saying we need more alternative means to do it, no problem with that, the alternatives don’t exist at the moment so unless you’re against mobility as it’s done now until we find better solutions then you’re in favor of the destruction of the environment in order to not disrupt the status quo.
People don’t get to “enjoy the world” without a thought about the environmental impact that comes with it at the moment. For there to be a world to enjoy, people need to stop taking planes and as long as they take planes then alternatives won’t be developed.
I mean, trains exist, they’re just not the best in the US.
You also seemed to be okay with driving, which startled me but is definitively a viable alternative in almost all cases.
Given some of your other comments, I think I’m gonna take it as a “no” on the “telling the difference between travel at any cost and being more mad at systems and those who control them than individuals” question.
When you look at fuel economy per passenger a small car with two passengers and a huge truck with four passengers both beat air travel in a plane full of passengers (about 4L/100km/passenger for the plane, which is easy to beat in a car). Add to that the fact that planes don’t have the equivalent of a catalytic converter and that emissions at altitude are about twice as damaging… Well, traveling by car is the environmental decision when the alternative is taking a plane, especially for shorter trips as planes waste a ton of fuel for takeoff and landing.
Some people want to travel at any cost, I’m saying they should learn to travel close to home because traveling around the world has a huge environmental impact.