3 ms·

You'd also think someone would realize that having better sunscreen does probably not nearly offset the 19000 miles round trip of fuel burnt for a trip from NYC

• Alex3917 10y ago
  Completely separate issue. Ensuring that air pollution doesn't cause unacceptable levels of harm is what cap & trade is for. In the case of cosmetics there are many ingredients that should just be illegal, whereas in the case of air pollution it's an issue of goods and services that should be legal, but where the total levels of various pollutants aren't currently capped and then priced accordingly. In my case this was our honeymoon, so we would have gladly (or at least begrudgingly) paid an extra couple hundred bucks or whatever. Whereas someone else just wanting to go to some conference might instead choose to participate remotely.
• ramblenode 10y ago
  The sunscreen may actually be more damaging than the air travel. > It turns out that oxybenzone can be toxic to baby coral at levels as low as 62 parts per trillion. In plain English, that's equivalent to one drop in 6.5 Olympic swimming pools. Dr C. Downs surveyed reefs in Hawaii and the US Virgin Islands. His team measured levels as high as 1,400,000 parts per trillion. That's more that 20,000 times higher than the toxic levels. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/greatmomentsinscience/how-a-common-chemical-in-sunscreen-is-damaging-our-coral-reefs/7810090 http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/greatmomentsins...