241–250 of 276 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It feels spacious, natural, functional, and hospitable. If we want to solve the climate crisis, this is everything an airport should not be.
How does a cramped, artificial, non-functional airport solve the climate crisis?
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?
It takes about the same amount of CO2 to carry container across the Pacific as to truck it across the country. Producing it here or there doesn't make much difference. If anything, it is more efficient to produce in China cause they have higher percent of renewable electricity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suppose with such a large investment though, they'd want to plan for that possibly changing eventually, no? I'd be flying from/to Canada anyway, but if it was a viable and better option compared to others like SF, they'd get my business instead, not that there's much business to give
At 2.5M people, Portland, Oregon metro probably cannot support many international routes (except Vancouver). And it has very few businesses that would necessitate international business travel. Maybe a flight to Japan, London, mainland Europe, and Mexico.
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.
It is dumb to give up modern comforts when we know how to make them green by making electricity renewable and electrifying everything. Changing habits like reducing driving and increasing transit would help. Some things will be hard, like airplanes and concrete.
I agree somewhat that there is lots of distractions. There is a lot of talk about plastic and recycling that really has little to do with climate change.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does a cramped, artificial, non-functional airport solve the climate crisis?
Maybe by discouraging air travel? lol I dunno.. silly take
Yes, by making prettier and bigger airports do you think that encourages or discourages air travel?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Much of the issue is that city planners like it that way. The building codes require it, and when they don't, they'll have design review requirements where the planners will make you change it. There's a common modern look called a 5-over-1 which usually looks like a giant box made out of four different colored Lego sets. The random different colors are forced on them by planners who think it provides "articulation".…
> The PNW actually doesn't have these rules, although the rest of the country hasn't noticed yet. For all our warts, I continue to believe the PNW is the best area of the country to live. I'm obviously biased. But I've lived a lot of places and I keep coming back here.
The PNW is good for certain types of people: those who love nature, are less urban, who are more introverted, less interested in high culture.
I’ve also lived in many parts of the country and Canada, and the PNW has been the least favorite for me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe the other improvement people don't pay attention to is the new TSA scanners you don't have to take your laptop out.
If you had TSA Precheck -- which if you fly more than a couple of times a year is well worth it IMO -- then you already didn't need to take your laptop out (or shoes off). (On the other hand I see no point in CLEAR over Precheck)
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.
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.…
Does burying wood actually work? I'm assuming it's a little more complicated than literally burying it, cause wouldn't it decay and release carbon at some point anyway?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe in this case they aren't waiting for it to mature. They use what's called LVL (laminate veneer lumber) which is basically thin sheets of the wood glued together (think plywood but thicker) and then recut into dimensional sizes. The end product is both stronger and straighter than conventional lumber. And because you don't need a large cross section (almost literally any size will do), you can have a pretty…
PDX is not using LVL, they're using glulam. That's 2x4 and 2x6 dimensional lumber glued together. https://www.apawood.org/pdx-gets-back-to-its-roots-with-engi...