3 ms·
Pretty sure it doesn't take a literal ton of fuel to move me across Europe in a train. In an airplane, it does.
by MauranKilom 7y ago
Pretty sure it doesn't take a literal ton of fuel to move me across Europe in a train. In an airplane, it does.
- t34543 7y agoTime is more valuable.
- esotericn 7y agoIndeed it is. There'll be time after us.
- criddell 7y agoYou aren't against pricing in more of the externalities though, right? For example, a round trip flight between NY and London is said to melt 3 cubic meters of arctic ice per passenger. So it wouldn't be unreasonable for airlines to be required to offset that in some way? If so, then we just disagree on how to structure the tax but mostly agree on the need to reduce damaging flights.
- hodgesrm 7y agoDepends on the plane and the load factor. Assuming a conservative 80 mpg per seat a flight from Moscow to London would consume the following to move your tail between locations: 1554 miles / (80 miles/gallon) * 6.8 lbs/gallon = 132 lbs I was actually a bit surprised how little it is. It gets better in newer aircraft assuming all seats are taken. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Medium-haul_flights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Mediu...