251–260 of 578 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/climate/airplane-pollutio... https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/1/11/1817711... emissions-travel
Random click bait articles are not citations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The new French tax will be 1.5 euros for flights within France or the European Union, 3 euros for economy flights out of the EU, 9 euros for intra-EU business class and up to 18 euros for business class tickets out of the EU. Transit flights will not be taxed." I read that as most flights in or out of France being taxed. "Transit flights" Is that a connecting flight? Seems to be the only exception.
> "Transit flights" Is that a connecting flight? Seems to be the only exception. Makes sense, economically, in that there is quite fierce competition between CDG and other major European hub airports for filling spare intercontinental capacity and multi-hop connections are far more price sensitive than direct flights. If CDG would lose a majority of regional (but still international) feeder traffic to FRA or AMS, Par…
We could virtually eliminate carbon emissions altogether if humans went back to living in caves and dying at the age of 30. Resources were placed on this earth for the advancement of humankind. If someone wants to take it upon themselves to reduce their carbon footprint by not eating meat, living in a tent or staying in one place their entire lives then be my guest, just don't regress the whole of humanity by mandati…
What kind of argument is this? Is this the Christian argument that God gave us fossil fuels and all the rest, therefore mine, drill, and "burn baby, burn"? I'd think Christians would see this GIFT of life and a planet as part of a charge to take care of it.
The evidence-based view is that we live on a rocky spheroid which condensed from space-dust and asteroids forged in long-gone stars. There is no "placement" of resources, nor is there any inherent purpose to using or not using them.
I'm all for advancement of society, but it's hardly regression to not eat meat, reduce travel emissions, or reduce housing costs. Many people live very low-footprint lifestyles, it's possible and quite do-able if you're efficient and non-consumerist.
I've flown through a French airport once - Paris Charles de Gaulle and since have gone out of my way to not fly through it again. It was a hot mess. They lost the luggage, it was hard to find gates, parts of it looked outdated, customer service sucked. A year after, the ceiling at its _new_ terminal collapsed killing several people ( https://www.thoughtco.com/charles-de-gaulle-airport-terminal... ). Maybe it was just…
http://plus.lefigaro.fr/note/the-most-hated-airport-in-the-w...
We could virtually eliminate carbon emissions altogether if humans went back to living in caves and dying at the age of 30. Resources were placed on this earth for the advancement of humankind. If someone wants to take it upon themselves to reduce their carbon footprint by not eating meat, living in a tent or staying in one place their entire lives then be my guest, just don't regress the whole of humanity by mandati…
>Resources were placed on this earth for the advancement of humankind. I hate to be that guy, but [Citation Needed]. Otherwise, I agree with you what what essentially amounts to a primitivist approach is counterproductive.
I have a difficult time believing that we arrived on a planet perfectly suited for our habitation and rife with resources that become unlocked at the exact point in our progress where we have technologies that require them, purely by chance.
> Want to do something about climate change? Start with yourself I really dislike this line of thinking. I don’t manufacture millions of tons of concrete or millions of single-use plastic shampoo bottles. Our current path is irreversible if drastic shifts in disposable consumerism don’t occur soon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible" ~ Stanisław Jerzy Lec Sure, you won't be able to make a measurable impact by yourself. However your mindset quickly leads to a tragedy of the commons type response that leaves us all in trouble. We should all take a more proactive approach to this in both our private life and in our professional work.
This is an excellent analogy given that snowflakes don't exactly have any agency over whether they end up in an avalanche, and removing individual snowflakes from a mountain won't an avalanche stop.
That is exactly the point of the analogy. One single snowflake doesn't prevent the avalanche and therefore one single snowflake is not to blame. However if enough snowflakes are removed the avalanche is stopped. Similarly no single person is going to fix climate change. The only way we see results is if enough people band together to make changes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But save you from the pain of getting to/from CDG.
Getting to CDG...by train...is pretty easy. Traveling by train through Paris is a PITA as it often involves a station transfer via bus.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, I mean by the same logic also Lisboa and Washington DC are connected by land during some parts of the year.
I really don't think we are using the same logic, but if people want to argue that Europe and Africa are not physically connected by land, then I'm going to start claiming that England and Scotland aren't either, given the distance between Carlisle and Newcastle is less than from Port Said to Suez.
But even taking this into account, I'm not sure I understand your latest comment (the one I'm replying to right now).
EDIT: ok, after reading your comment for the umpteenth time I understood. I just have to admit I'm very bad at geography.
EDIT 2: So I'm being downvoted for admitting I was wrong?