31–40 of 128 posts
Yes let's continue burning fuel. It's fine.
I guess if you are really serious about saving the planet from airplanes, you could start a network of similar-feeling folks and begin randomly bombing enough flights to terrify the world into not flying. Give yourself an edgy name, like the Children of Kali, to make it stick. Honestly, if you think the stakes are that high then you implicate yourself with anything but fully committed action. Anything less, and you j…
I don't know if there was really a 'message' more than just reporting what 'happened'. But, I have to say I came away with the idea that that kind of political violence is futile. Non-violent political action seemed to have MUCH more beneficial action than any bomb. (of course it wasn't as clear-cut between non-violent groups and revolutionary groups at the time)
Maybe thats only because I just read the ONE book.
Yes let's continue burning fuel. It's fine.
Here is a good list of 'fuel per seat (in mpg)' numbers for various airplane configurations and flight durations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Examp... The total average across the industry in 2018 was between 67 and 81 mpg. Modern planes are in the 100-120mpg range.
With numbers like that I guess they have no reason to make flights more comfortable or convenient. I just did a cross country flight and back 2 weeks ago and I'm still recovering from it. I really hate flying now.
The real cost of air travel continues to go down as customers really only discriminate on price. Airlines have tried before to compete on other facets but everything failed. The best you can do is look at specific carriers, and more importantly specifically what aircraft you'll be flying on. A cross country flight in economy is going to be more comfortable in a Delta A220 than a United 737 Max. However, because of hu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Flying is a bit unique in that there aren't really viable alternatives. It also accounts for a fairly small portion of emissions. Land transport (cars and trucks), power generation, and heating are where the big wins exist with viable alternatives.
What?? In Europe there are lots of viable alternatives. Same as Asia!!
Yes let's continue burning fuel. It's fine.
It is often cheaper to take a connecting flight to an airport and flying from there than to start from that airport. That disincentivises taking a low-carbon-emission train to the airport and experiencing more of (and spending more in) the city near the airport than just its airport.
Often, for longer flights, the more stops, the cheaper the total ticket gets. Planes consume more fuel at take-off and landing, making the the carbon footprint increase with these cheaper tickets. And the more you fly, the more points you get that could pay for more flights.
It should be the other way around: air-travel carbon tax should be progressive. You should pay more each time if you fly more often. That would reduce the number of flights in total while still allowing everyone to take that "trip of a life-time".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here is a good list of 'fuel per seat (in mpg)' numbers for various airplane configurations and flight durations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Examp... The total average across the industry in 2018 was between 67 and 81 mpg. Modern planes are in the 100-120mpg range.
The issue is that we are enabling people to travel long distances too cheaply.