this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2023
550 points (94.8% liked)
Europe
8484 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe ๐ช๐บ
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, ๐ฉ๐ช ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out [email protected]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Again, not true. The statements are based on current averages of 80% occupancy in a plane and 1.3 passengers per trip. That means that, on average, most planes are close to full occupancy while most car rides are 1 passenger rides. It's not disingenuous at all.
If you're only going to focus on the small percent of car rides with 3+ people, then you're already moving the goalposts from the initial claims.
I'm focusing on travels for the same fucking purpose because my point from the beginning has been that we would be better off if people used their car to go on vacation instead because they would use less gas because they wouldn't go as far AND because cars are more efficient when there's more than one passenger in them, you keep using numbers that don't make sense because you compare average occupancy for long distance travel by plane to occupancy for mixed distance travel by car.
No fucking shit most of the times car travel there's only one person inside, most of the times they don't travel long distances for vacations! When they do their occupancy tends to be higher because the majority of people don't go on long distance vacation alone!
Ban air travel is fucking stupid
Banning it for non essential needs isn't when we're facing a climate crisis that will displace millions (if not billions in the long run).
It is when it's not a realistic solution and there are other ways of achieving better outcomes with a greater return on investment of time and resources.
How do you think people lived until 70 years ago? You made the choice to move far from your family, that's a consequence that comes with that choice and you still wanting to see them means you're ready to shift the consequence of your choices on the people who will suffer the most of climate change.
70+ years ago people just accepted the fact that living far from their family meant they wouldn't see each other and they would need to communicate by mail.
The fact is you live a long distance from your family, it's your problem and those who will be affected by climate change the most shouldn't have to pay for it and if it's so important to see your family then you should move back.
Yes, as I said, you're moving the goal posts! The initial point that was being discussed was whether or not planes have higher emissions that cars because planes are less efficient than cars and that's not true. You're arguing a hypothetical that puts the car in an ideal situation while simultaneously putting planes in the worst situation. You suggested banning the majority of commercial flights when that won't even make as big of an impact. Why not ban the majority of cars since they have a far greater cumulative impact than planes? If we're going for completely unreasonable suggestions that only affect single-digit percentages of the problem, why not ban boats too?
And my point was that this is an unreasonable ask since it would limit where people can travel while not actually moving the needle in any substantive, meaningful way.
Banning commercial flights would not lower CO2 emissions by 3%. You're living in a fantasy world.