4 ms·

We can solve multiple problems at a time. This just reads as really defensive. Like it or not, air travel DOES have a big carbon footprint, and arguably most of

We can solve multiple problems at a time. This just reads as really defensive. Like it or not, air travel DOES have a big carbon footprint, and arguably most of it is unnecessary (we fly people across the country to help manage PowerPoint presentations). We’re going to have to solve it at some point, so why not now?

mirimir 7y ago
Yes. More realistically, we could take lots of the air travel out of life. Looking back at all my years of work-related flying, there's very little that could not have been accomplished remotely. Especially with current videoconferencing capabilities.
closeparen 7y ago
When leisure travelers don't fly, they drive. Having clean, efficient ground transportation is required to reap the benefit of reducing air travel. (If you cut off all avenues to seeing Grandma at Christmas besides FaceTime, you'll get voted out of office).
- journalctl 7y ago
  Let’s solve both of these problems then, which it seems like people are doing. Plus, we already know how to solve ground transport, we just refuse to actually do it (renewables, public transit, dense development, etc). Air travel is more challenging given the massive amount of energy required.
  - closeparen 7y ago
    Public transit and dense development can reduce the necessity of renting a car or hiring a cab when you arrive in another city, but that's not where the energy goes in long distance travel. Without high speed rail, reducing air travel just puts more cars on the interstates.
ars 7y ago
> We can solve multiple problems at a time It's not "multiple" problems. There's just one: Where do you get energy? Trying to change the fuel (not energy) source of an airplane is the most useless of all the things that should be changed. Remember: The place the fuel is burned makes no difference, what matters is how you sourced the energy, so why go for expensive and complicated hydrogen for airplanes, when the EXACT SAME energy can be used on land?

mirimir 7y ago

Yes. More realistically, we could take lots of the air travel out of life. Looking back at all my years of work-related flying, there's very little that could not have been accomplished remotely. Especially with current videoconferencing capabilities.

closeparen 7y ago

When leisure travelers don't fly, they drive. Having clean, efficient ground transportation is required to reap the benefit of reducing air travel. (If you cut off all avenues to seeing Grandma at Christmas besides FaceTime, you'll get voted out of office).

journalctl 7y ago
Let’s solve both of these problems then, which it seems like people are doing. Plus, we already know how to solve ground transport, we just refuse to actually do it (renewables, public transit, dense development, etc). Air travel is more challenging given the massive amount of energy required.
- closeparen 7y ago
  Public transit and dense development can reduce the necessity of renting a car or hiring a cab when you arrive in another city, but that's not where the energy goes in long distance travel. Without high speed rail, reducing air travel just puts more cars on the interstates.

ars 7y ago

> We can solve multiple problems at a time It's not "multiple" problems. There's just one: Where do you get energy? Trying to change the fuel (not energy) source of an airplane is the most useless of all the things that should be changed. Remember: The place the fuel is burned makes no difference, what matters is how you sourced the energy, so why go for expensive and complicated hydrogen for airplanes, when the EXACT SAME energy can be used on land?