211–220 of 276 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does any of the famous carpet still remain? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_International_Airport...
Wow. That is an impressive rabbit hole to explore. > She also said that the Port of Portland "understand[s] that people have an emotional connection to the carpet". Not a phrase I expected to read today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please tell me they kept a patch of the iconic carpet around
Such a notable carpet it even has its own wiki article! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_International_Airport...
Many people who spent many hours staring at the old carpet while in line for panels missed it very much and founded the Cult of the Carpet[0]. It has "priests" that wear robes with the pattern, you can buy bags and t-shirts with the pattern, etc. My favorite is the guy who painted his storm trooper armor with the pattern.
[0] https://www.11alive.com/article/news/weird/dragon-con-cult-o...
I agree it looks nice, but dressing up an airport in sustainable materials won't materially change the fact that a flight Boston - NYC (one-way!) blasts through ~0.7t[1] of CO2eq of your yearly budget of 1-3t[2]. It won't change the fact, but I'm sure it'll make it easier to forget or ignore. [1] https://co2.myclimate.org/en/portfolios?calculation_id=75775... [2] e.g. https://ieep.eu/publications/carbon-inequality-in…
The carbon emission is not a problem, the imbalance is. When we burn fossil fuels, we use carbon that was stored by dead plants being buried. We take carbon from the ground and dump it in the atmosphere. Plants take carbon from the atmosphere. If were to bury the equivalent amount of wood, we would be equal. Buried wood is not useful, but building from it also locks the carbon somewhere else that isn't an atmosphere.…
Burying wood that would have taken decades to decay is not equal to instantly releasing the equivalent amount of carbon. I'm not sure it's physically possible to remove CO2 from the atmosphere at the same rate a plane emits it, which would be the only way to genuinely "offset" the emissions.
The wood is pretty, but as someone who uses this terminal, the key improvement is that they raised the ceiling and significantly increased the amount of natural light. Here's a good photo of what it looked like before: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Portland_Internation... The major functional drawback is that wayfinding for both arrivals and departures is much worse. The overall flow of foot traffic is way…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without oxygen, any decay is going to be incredibly slow. They're still pulling usable timber from trees that sank in rivers after being cut in the southeastern US 200 years ago. It's not cheap, but if you want some real old-growth oak, it's a viable source. And that's not a completely anaerobic environment.
200y is not really an incredibly long time at all
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far as I can tell, those guys mostly only exist in the fever dreams of online commentators.
Except when they're firebombing Portland: - https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=27143... - https://www.newsweek.com/molotov-cocktail-portland-protester... Oh look, here's a video showing a guy lighting a firebomb and throwing it - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMkTfGlM-f0&t=190s Hmmm, left a bomb behind (guy was caught, extradited and sentenced to 4 years) - https://apnews.com/article/race-and-et…
Yeah, you saw Fox News. The people living here continue to be amused at the caricature. During the worst of the 'riots' we were all just living our lives as normal, because that all happened in like two blocks right next to the courthouse. And that was as bad as it ever got.
Portland is very boring, very safe [0]. And for better or worse, not nearly as weird as it aspires. It has been getting steadily less weird, sadly.
[0] From antifa, at least. Rough homeless camps are not an ideal place to hang out if you don't have to
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sadly, it's true. In my opinion, this is the hypocrisy of the modern 'green' agenda - we endlessly discuss pollution, yet we cling to the comforts of modern life, many of which cause even greater harm.
Isn't clinging to the comforts of modern life worth heating the planet a bit? It doesn't seem like an unreasonable tradeoff to me.
I agree it looks nice, but dressing up an airport in sustainable materials won't materially change the fact that a flight Boston - NYC (one-way!) blasts through ~0.7t[1] of CO2eq of your yearly budget of 1-3t[2]. It won't change the fact, but I'm sure it'll make it easier to forget or ignore. [1] https://co2.myclimate.org/en/portfolios?calculation_id=75775... [2] e.g. https://ieep.eu/publications/carbon-inequality-in…
the same people telling me to save on my carbon emission are the ones who are ok with free trade to have stuff made thousands of miles away (in jurisdictions with very lax environmental laws) that could be made right here and employ blue-collar workers. Those container ships arrive full and leave empty. What's the CO2eq of that?
I agree it looks nice, but dressing up an airport in sustainable materials won't materially change the fact that a flight Boston - NYC (one-way!) blasts through ~0.7t[1] of CO2eq of your yearly budget of 1-3t[2]. It won't change the fact, but I'm sure it'll make it easier to forget or ignore. [1] https://co2.myclimate.org/en/portfolios?calculation_id=75775... [2] e.g. https://ieep.eu/publications/carbon-inequality-in…
Sadly, it's true. In my opinion, this is the hypocrisy of the modern 'green' agenda - we endlessly discuss pollution, yet we cling to the comforts of modern life, many of which cause even greater harm.
I accept there is not a story for air travel, yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It boggles my mind why the US doesn't simply offer high-speed trains for easy distances like those. That whole Northeast is just screaming for it with easily managable distances. Boston, NYC, Philly, Baltimore, DC.. All easily high-speed-trainable. Boston to Portland too, for that matter. Instead of spending 1 hour queueing at the airport, spend one hour on the train and you're there.
Boston to Portland, OR? The city discussed in the article? It's 3000 miles! I would personally love to live in a world where you can go 200mph on a train and do it in 15 hours but I wouldn't call it easy.