Not only the billionaires, even the millionaires, and all the people taking the plane more than once a year. It is an ecological crime the pollution of air transport.
What’s magical about that once-a-year limit? I find that quite a lot already.
fun fact. modern planes consume ~3-4l per 100 passengers per km or 3-4l per passenger per 100km.
efficient ICE cars consume ~6l per passenger per 100km.
add to that, that there’s basically no good alternative to fast very long distance or cross-continent transport
Edit #2: ICE is a type of train in germany. I mistook “ICE cars” as meaning trains and was wondering how flying is supposed to be more efficient than trains. Hence my confusion.
OG comment (invalid, see Edit #2): Where are these numbers coming from?
I cannot find any source for the 3-4l/passenger/km claim. I cannot find any source for the claim that planes are more efficient. Nothing comes even near this claim.
https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint
https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/rail-and-waterborne-transport
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566
Can you please provide a source?
Edit #1: I just want to add that my old combustion car (VW Up! / Seat Mii / Skoda Citigo) burned around 4.2l/100km. So I according to you, if I had another person with me, I’d beat both planes and trains with what stands uncontested as the most inefficient form of transport?
Since I just had this whole back and forth with someone else a few days ago, I have these handy. I’m not the parent, but he’s right. An individual car can be more fuel efficient with 3+ passengers but the average car trip is only 1.3 passengers. The most popular use of a car is commuting and that stands at 1.2 passengers per trip.
“A new report from the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute shows that flying has become 74% more efficient per passenger since 1970 while driving gained only 17% efficiency per passenger. In fact, the average plane trip has been more fuel efficient than the average car trip since as far back as 2000, according to their calculations.”
http://websites.umich.edu/~umtriswt/PDF/UMTRI-2014-2_Abstract_English.pdf
“The main findings are that to make driving less energy intensive than flying, the fuel economy of the entire fleet of light-duty vehicles would have to improve from the current 21.5 mpg to at least 33.8 mpg, or vehicle load would have to increase from the current 1.38 persons to at least 2.3 persons.”
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/09/evolving-climate-math-of-flying-vs-driving/
efficient ICE cars consume ~6l per passenger per 100km.
More like 6L per 100km, whatever the number of passengers, I suppose. So it’s usually still less than planes.
And there are better alternatives like trains or buses, which can be actually efficient for long distance travels (high speed trains, night travel. Works well from city centre to city centre)
There is also the additional issue of contrails which are a massive factor of greenhouse effect
Is that planes that are packed to the gills or private planes that actually have space that people aren’t crammed into?
Also, 3-4/6 liters of what? ICE cars and modern planes aren’t burning the same fuel, so I’m not sure what this is intending to portray by directly comparing how much of each (in liters) that they burn (serious question, no snark)
The alternative is stop traveling such huge distances all the time.
Other than public transportation and filling up the cars with people, instead of having one vehicle per person.
Distances that require a flight are far too common here in the US at least, it’s kind of unavoidable
Oh yeah let’s go full authoritarian, that’s what leftism does best after all
Yeah gotta agree with you. I have to fly a good amount, both families live over 2000 miles away, it’s unavoidable. But I change what I can in society, I am switching to an EV, I pay extra on my electricity to pay for green sources, and I overall try to lower my carbon footprint.
As soon as they come out with an alternative fuel airline I’ll be flying on that as much as possible, but until there are alternatives I’m stuck flying.
100% convinced our decedents will look back in this age and laugh 2 things : domestic recycling as an attempt to save the the planet , and the fact that we did nothing unless there was a profit in it.
Also I don’t know about you, but my countries recycling relied on sending it all to China to burn.
dustsv hands yep my work here is done
Recycling is a lie to keep making plastic, nothing more
Ancestors?
It will probably be an alien species who will find a dead planet and wonder how and why so much toxic material was spread around the planet … and also wonder why there is an orbiting space station filled with gold, paper money and the greyed out decaying bodies of a humanoid species.
Humanity will survive the climate apocalypse. Life is incredible at adaptation. But our present society won’t survive and our descendents will curse us for sitting idle while their future was sacrificed for the sale of lethargy.
I remember reading a fun fact: A single day (it might have even been an hour but let’s err on the side of caution) of the bigger cruise ship engine use pumps out the same amount of pollution as all of the cars in Europe do combined for a while year.
Why on fuck do we bother with the small stuff when the big ones have such a huge weight on the problem.
One cruise ship has carbon emissions roughly equivalent to 12,000 cars. Maybe if you’re specifically looking at sulphur oxide pollution, since modern cars emit so little of it. But there’s a lot of other stuff coming out of tailpipes, sulphur oxide is just a single pollutant.
sadfasfasdf
I disagree that this is a right wing talking point, but whether it is or not is irrelevant. If it’s a problem, it’s a problem. There is no “buying into it.”
It’s a genuine problem that billionaires create literally ONE MILLION times more carbon footprint than 90% of the people. https://www.npr.org/2022/11/09/1135446721/billionaires-carbon-dioxide-emissions
You’re talking about two different ways to screw the environment. One is the rampant plastics pandemic, the other is carbon emissions. Paper straws are meant to combat the first, not the second.
While that’s true, I think the complaint here is that the the law deliberately harms poor people only. Instead of banning individual plastic applications, we should be taxing literally all plastics and letting consumers decide what’s worth it. And if we are to take a case-by-case class warfare approach, we should be going after the excesses of the wealthy - like private jets.
It’s not that they’re the same thing, it’s that they both hurt the environment and are treated very differently.
Downvote this man and his factual statement!!!
The popular comments are all about how recycling is a scam to allow plastic companies to continue creating plastics.
But mushy straws isn’t even about recycling. You’re literally removing a plastic that people use all the time. Sounds like a win no matter what.
My number one pet peeve:
hey here’s one some concession we can do to make the planet slightly better.
Most people in the US:
if it doesn’t t solve all of our problems 100% I’m not going to think about doing so. What it only makes life slightly better for us? Nope fuck that it means I have to be slightly inconvenienced for it, I’m not willing to do that. Come back when it’ll fix everything 100% and then I’ll find more excuses to why I don’t have to change.
Where can I buy a seat on that that shit looks cool as fuck
You get your first ticket as a part of the gift hamper you receive when you earn your first billion through honest hard work and never taking a sick day in your life. Each subsequent ticket is gained through deals shifting help desk call centres to India, The Phillipines or China.
Obviously, the tickets are very sort after but on-selling them is only legal if you list them as “TICKET FOR TAYLOR SWIFT CONCERT!! Serious offers only!!! #swifty #taytay”.
