Based
Based on what?
I think young Ana is hotter than Widowmaker.
You take that back!
Commercial aviation is one of the biggest CO2 emitters.
But point that out to all the travel obsessed millennials who want to brag about their Prius and their composet pile… and they tell you what an awful person you are. lol
A 4 hr train trip vs a flight is about a 1000x difference in CO output.
I don’t travel much because it’s one of the most environmentally destructive things any single average person can do. Not traveling is way more green than buying a Prius/EV. But it seems to be the #1 social status marker among the under 40 set. Esp among young women.
Aviation is responsible for around 2% of emissions, but it’s also the global connector. While we should refrain from flying when possible just counting on individuals to take the best behavior won’t work.
What should be done:
- ban private jets
- end all the tax perks for aviation, which allow for insanely cheap tickets that promote senseless flying
- ban short over-land flights
- simplify ticketing and reduce prices on international trains in Europe, it’s almost always too expensive to cross borders by train in Europe, it makes no sense.
We need aviation, but we also need it to be sensible in a warming planet.
Or, hear me out, make it unnecessary to travel distances beyond a day of walking. Work from home was a blessing during the Pandemic, why can’t we make it the standard?
Because I want to see the world while I am here and not just a circumference of human-powered locomotion.
I agree with everything there but a ban on short distance flights. If the prices reflect the costs let people fly.
The problem is that that only happens because aviation gets tax perks that trains or buses don’t.
I think the point he’s making is that our second bullet of your list would make the third bullet unnecessary.
There’s some redundancy, but a ban solves the issue instantly and also creates a strong incentive for better ground transport.
Fair enough; I wasn’t commenting on the idea one way or another, just trying to clarify what I thought the other commenter meant.
Personally, I’m almost never in favor of a ban. I’d rather tax heavily and use the income for programs to offset. I’m 20 years removed from optimism about reducing emissions, so I think we should be leaning into technology that can actively pull stuff out of the atmosphere. That could create an incentive to move away from flying but also use the flying that’s still happening to fund figuring out how to reverse the damage that’s already been done.
Got news for ya, way more boomers are flying than millennials. Millennials are broke.
From a per-distance standpoint a flight is hardly any worse than driving alone. Cars are just that bad for the environment (and have fewer inspections for compliance and can afford to dump more particulates into the environment).
The single most environmentally destructive thing that people can do is drive. Fortunately, it’s also the single most lethal thing that people can do. Even more fortunately, it’s also insanely expensive to do. Even more more fortunately, a lack of car-based development allows for greater density and thus reduced mobility needs in general.
In working papers released over the past two years, Sivak has attempted to overturn the conventional wisdom: His main recent finding is that the average energy intensity of driving is about twice that of flying, a conclusion based on the current average on-road fuel economy of cars, pick-up trucks, SUVs, and vans (21.6 mpg).
This is so much better and more effective than throwing confetti at Wimbledon for attention
It’s a good one.
Wimbledon also got tons of attention.
The number of idiots insisting protests be easy to ignore seems to be gradually dropping, so I think things are working pretty okay.
This will not help their image.
Have you seen Don’t Look Up? We’re literally at the “screaming we’re all gonna die on a children’s tv show” phase.
Left leaning groups these days have an uncanny ability at turning people off of the very causes that they are trying to promote.
There was that incident in the US where a bunch of wackos blocked an entire highway and wouldn’t get up. There was a guy there in his car pleading with them because if he missed his parole meeting for any reason, he would get thrown back in jail. They still wouldn’t move.
And there are all the endless other incidents involving PETA which are so purposefully abrasive.
It is no wonder why even after seeing how corrupt and incompetent Right leaning politicians are, many societies around the world are still shifting to the right because Left groups are just so bad at communicating with the general public. They are so bad at connecting with average Joes and yet so damn good at turning those average people off.
Communication seriously needs to improve.
Removed by mod
How do you define causing more harm than good? To our species? The people who can afford overseas vacations? The economy? And surely, it’s not foolish to think that destroying our planet has no consequences. 😊 What do you think people should do to protest? They have been protesting for years with proper permissions and official support, and guess what? Nobody cared. I’m not defending their actions, but I can understand why the situation is escalating. Depending on where you live, tensions rise in more than one sense. It’s difficult to witness the world deteriorating. You can choose to ignore it, of course, but ultimately it won’t matter. We are all facing consequences, whether from nature, our own species’ actions, or social and economic inequalities. Perhaps it’s a combination of all these factors. Who knows? XD - The next chapter in our civilization will indeed be interesting, as in one way or another, change remains the only constant in life.
In which way do they cause harm?
I would imagine OP meant in terms of CO2 emitted by those particular planes. I have no sources, but recall hearing that due to the relative inefficiency of the engines at taxi speeds, a large percentage of the fuel required for a flight is consumed driving to/from the runway. However, how much extra emissions were made highly depends on how they did stop the flights and/or announce their presence on the runway - if the planes never left the gates, the extra emissions would be close to 0 for instance.
I’m pretty sure the point of these protests is not to make an immediate impact on statistic you pull out. They know better than that. It’s about the big picture. It’s about raising awareness of environmental problems and keeping them at the forefront of people’s minds. It’s about reminding people what’s at stake. The details of how much emissions they saved that day are irrelevant; it’s about taking action.
Also about giving other angry and worried people a nidus to work around. It’s too easy to feel angry and alone,. protests show that you’re not alone and.others are taking action.
Sitting back and politely listening to warnings has done less than nothing
deleted by creator
