131–140 of 339 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Synthetic fuels and nuclear energy are well established. Yes, and they reduce CO2 emissions.
How? A kg of fuel should have roughly the same CO2 emission regardless of how it is produced? The thing it that synthetic fuels are cyclic. We collect the emitted CO2 again.
Like this:
> The thing it that synthetic fuels are cyclic. We collect the emitted CO2 again.
I travel to my home country once a year to visit family, but have it set up so that my origin for the round trip is the home country (ie XYZ-SFO-XYZ rather than SFO-XYZ-SFO). The ticket is generally half the cost, which adds up when you're traveling with family. I can only do this because I consistently travel to that same place every year, otherwise I wouldn't be able to swap the origin. It also requires you knowing…
So whenever the next trip was required the return-leg of the trip was changed and a new return trip was booked.
I thought that airlines will block you from buying a flight from a different country. Often this is liked to credit card issuer country. E.g. you can't buy a flight departing from Australia on a foreign website using an Australian credit card.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
You have been brainwashed into lowering your standard of life. You shouldn't be upset at others because of that - instead, work on yourself.
Destroying the planet is indeed lowering not only your standard of life, but everyone’s. Remember there’s no planet B.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe the commenter does not share the opinion that climate change should be addressed by reducing emissions. I definitely understand your sentiment. It is hard to restrain oneself of a good for some cause to see other people using it. In this case it might be productive to adapt a new view that better suits reality and increases congruence between ideas about the world and imperics.
> does not share the opinion that climate change should be addressed by reducing emissions. The opinion that it should be addressed or not? Because there's no feasible route to addressing it that doesn't involve reducing fossil emissions.
The only thing that matters is preventing extraction of fossil fuels in the first place.
That's why the fossil fuel industry promoted the idea of "carbon footprints", and why Adtech make their datacenters renewable - greenwashing their business that makes money selling the whole economy of fossil-fuel derived stuff, including flights and the fossil fuel industry's actual propaganda[1][2].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
[1] https://www.clientearth.org/projects/the-greenwashing-files/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> that doesn't involve reducing fossil emissions. You can fly an airplane on non-fossil fuels. As the original commenter also said: He'd rather focus on earning money than saving a bit. Maybe that opinion translates to the climate debate? Maybe he wants to produce large amounts of energy with limited externalities instead of saving a bit.
At what cost to others? The climate morality debate is complicated because it's all statistical. "Drown Bangladesh and Florida" is obviously a wrong outcome, but there's no one individual wrong action that leads there. You could come up with an approximation like "each gallon of jet fuel consumed raises the sea level by one femtometre"; each action is individually trivial, but combined they are not trivial.
No, the hard part is that we just can't do the obvious, because there is no one global government that could mandate it. Instead, everyone at every level - individual, corporate, governmental - is better off short-term by not doing any climate mitigation, because those who do will lose business to those who don't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This type of price discrimination isn't powered by surveillance capitalism. Yes it is. That's why people who book flights using an Apple computer will pay more ( https://www.imore.com/mac-users-might-be-paying-more-pc-user... ) they're pricing based on their best assumptions about your income level. Their dream is that they'll be able to just use facial recognition, or grab your ID from your cell phone, or force yo…
>Yes it is. That's why people who book flights using an Apple computer will pay more they're pricing based on their best assumptions about your income level. There is no claim of this on the article you linked and no proof of it. It says “could be”, which is unsubstantiated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're talking about finding a different way to reduce emissions, it is still reducing emissions.
Synthetic fuels do not reduce emissions. The emissions are just not from fossil fuels. Or am I missing something?
I've been flying internationally 10-15 times a year for ~10 years. Different routes and destinations each time. I've spent a lot of time searching for hacks like this that let me save a few bucks on flight tickets. Sometimes it works. Sometimes you find that a flight is cheaper depending on which country's website or currency you use to book. Flight tickets are priced dynamically using a variety of factors to determi…
Another hack is timing. Often I've taken a day off on either Friday or Monday when I'm travelling over the weekend -- the difference in cost can be as much as a day's wage.
I've been flying internationally 10-15 times a year for ~10 years. Different routes and destinations each time. I've spent a lot of time searching for hacks like this that let me save a few bucks on flight tickets. Sometimes it works. Sometimes you find that a flight is cheaper depending on which country's website or currency you use to book. Flight tickets are priced dynamically using a variety of factors to determi…
[flagged]
I can fly international 365 days a year for decades. But my children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will have 0 carbon footprint because they’ll never exist.
Conversely, eat bugs and recycle coke cans if you want, but that’s a fraction of a fraction of a drop in the bucket if you’ve had even one kid.