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 ๐Ÿ‡ช๐Ÿ‡บ

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, ๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ช ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out [email protected]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Just 1% of people are responsible for half of all toxic emissions from flying.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

When used for passengers and for the same purpose, no they're not. They only are if they're used for the same distance and the car has one passenger and the plane is full, but I'm sure even you realise how disingenuous that comparison is.

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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!

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ban air travel is fucking stupid

[โ€“] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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).

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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?

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 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.