11–20 of 325 posts
Stop fucking flying everywhere. If you think you have to travel far enough to justify a flight, think again. Do you really have to be there in person? Telecom technology has matured enough to make personal presence unnecessary. Your instagram vacation can wait until we have cleaner travel tech.
"Over all, air travel accounts for about 2.5 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions — a far smaller share than emissions from passenger cars or power plants." 2.5% means we should focus on reducing somewhere else in the near term.
Eeeeh, it depends. People in the US are going to go totally librarian poo if someone comes to take away their cars.
1. The alternative's include things they can own and control. This is really important in rural or suburban areas. It's also important for a lot of businesses. 2. The alternative's are handled in a cost effective rollout manner.
Basically, the solutions need to be in the public interest with them in mind. Not sure how that factors into startup and VC thinking these days.
I would imagine that eco friendly public transit systems could cut down on emissions, cut overall costs, and cut congestion in cities. That seems like a good place to target as low hanging fruit.
So many people are just getting to obtain some of their travel dreams and now they have to stop :(
"Over all, air travel accounts for about 2.5 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions — a far smaller share than emissions from passenger cars or power plants." 2.5% means we should focus on reducing somewhere else in the near term.
A cost number without a benefit number is completely useless for real analysis.
"Over all, air travel accounts for about 2.5 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions — a far smaller share than emissions from passenger cars or power plants." 2.5% means we should focus on reducing somewhere else in the near term.
It depends on who you are. The median person doesn't fly. But a round trip flight from Shanghai to New York is 3.4 tons of carbon, pretty close to the average global anual per capita emissions of 4.0 tons.
When the op says, "we should focus on…" I assume he's talking about policy, technology, etc., not individual concessions.
The best argument I can imagine for encouraging individual concessions is that, if the campaign to do so is massively successful, it might create a new norm, which will increase public awareness, which will increase public support for new policies and participation in the development of new technologies. But imo that's an unnecessarily roundabout course to chart.
To almost anyone you talk to, banning air travel sounds completely ridiculous. In reality it wouldn't be enough by itself. It's on the lower end of action that is required.
Stop fucking flying everywhere. If you think you have to travel far enough to justify a flight, think again. Do you really have to be there in person? Telecom technology has matured enough to make personal presence unnecessary. Your instagram vacation can wait until we have cleaner travel tech.
Lol no. Not gonna happen.
2.5% eh? We should all immediately stop flying... This is outrageous. Just imagine, 2.5%!! But on a more serious note, this article is again wrong, like so many others about climate change. Being a combination of clickbait and false assumptions, it fails to miss the point entirely that first, 2.5% are irrelevant, but also that it makes no sense whatsoever to tackle this now. The technology is just not there yet. What…