7 ms·

Air travel is ecologically unsustainable. I would hope the Corona crisis would be the perfect opportunity to wind down this archaic sector and transition that

Air travel is ecologically unsustainable. I would hope the Corona crisis would be the perfect opportunity to wind down this archaic sector and transition that part of the economy to something more future sustainable.

perfunctory 6y ago
Not sure why you get downvoted. The pre-corona aviation growth rate was a real problem. > Aviation could consume a quarter of 1.5C carbon budget by 2050 https://www.carbonbrief.org/aviation-consume-quarter-carbon-budget https://www.carbonbrief.org/aviation-consume-quarter-carbon-...
- PeterStuer 6y ago
  I think many people are still thinking of this as a temporary crisis that hopefully we can forget asap and turn back to "normal" as if this part of 2020 never happened. It is understandable as this crisis has not been easy on anyone. However, I would dare to expect more from a long term policy perspective. There are many things that were unsustainable with our socio-economic lifestyle long before the Corona crisis. While we can not prevent the impacts on the individual people businesses, we could use the funds that are rightfully mobilized to aid them to shape a "new" economy that is more aligned with the coming climate crisis. We did this in the past (also much too late) e.g. with the coal mining sector in Belgium. For a long time we tried to keep that activity alive just because 'jobs, jobs, jobs'. It took decades before politics was ready to stop trowing good money after bad, and create regional re-conversion funds to turn those local economies around and give them a 'new' economic activity model that did have a future. This is why I would advocate a scenario that spend on those people/companies impacted in industries such as aviation to turn them towards to other more sustainable parts of the future economy rather than just keep poring in money to let them cling to an ever more precarious activity.
- goatinaboat 6y ago
  The pre-corona aviation growth rate was a real problem. The data centre industry emits as much CO2 as aviation, see how far you get on here proposing that we need to do less computing, to save the planet!
  - perfunctory 6y ago
    Yes! We need to do less computing too. Much less. See, I said it.
    - goatinaboat 6y ago
      We need to do less computing too. I didn’t even mention the cost of desktop computing running all that shitty JavaScript. Probably at least as much CO2 again from just the ads.
  - redisman 6y ago
    Data centers are much easier to turn carbon neutral though. "Just" switch out the electricity provider. Flying with something other than jet fuel is more of an existential risk to the industry.
doikor 6y ago
Aviation is the one field where fossil fuels will stay around for a long time just do to the energy density and the fact that the plane gets lighter as you burn fuel. Almost any other industry can switch to mostly carbon neutral energy sources. So if we want to travel long distances fast there really isn't much of a realistic option. Though short flights (1 to 2h) should be replaced by rail when it makes sense (no sea to cross etc)
- walkingolof 6y ago
  Byproducts from the foresting industry (and other industries) can provide renewable aviation fuel soon. https://www.thelocal.se/20180313/swedens-forests-could-fuel-air-travel-researchers-say https://www.thelocal.se/20180313/swedens-forests-could-fuel-...
- AlotOfReading 6y ago
  That's not a realistic option outside Europe and parts of Asia. I'm in SF, the nearest major cities are LA (1h flight) and Seattle (1.5h flight). Those are 10h and 21h by train on a good day, respectively. On a bad day, double that. Additionally, trains are only 40% or so more efficient in terms of pollution. I suspect in most of the world you're far better off taking the plane and putting the fare difference into carbon credits.
  - doikor 6y ago
    You just have a shitty rail system in most of US. The solution is to fix it not fly more. Also trains are a lot more then 40% more efficient in terms of pollution. Eurostar for example 6g per km traveled while airplane is 100g (long haul flights much worse for short ones). Though electric train powered by coal can get to around 40g per km and even worse for diesel trains.
    - AlotOfReading 6y ago
      We have the track, just not the companies doing passenger service. The ones we used to have all went bankrupt during the great depression and disappeared. A similar story played out across the Americas in Canada, Brazil, and Argentina, all of which have expansive rail networks, but limited passenger service. As for efficiency, I'll go by amtrak's numbers [1], which claim to be 36% better than domestic air. [1] https://www.amtrak.com/travel-green https://www.amtrak.com/travel-green
FartyMcFarter 6y ago
"Having kids is ecologically unsustainable." There, I've made an equally unnuanced statement, now what? I don't think things are that black and white. A moderate amount of air travel is not unsustainable per se, I would think.
- PeterStuer 6y ago
  Moderate amounts of almost everything was sustainable. Nothing is moderate about our current day consumption and extraction, and moderation is not compatible with our current socio-economic "growth or death" model.
  - skrebbel 6y ago
    This still holds for having kids as well though.
    - MacsHeadroom 6y ago
      Yes, so what? Plenty of people are antinatalist, myself included. Thankfully, birth rates rapidly decline as nations develop. It's a problem that fixes itself. But it is a problem.
- lm28469 6y ago
  I think we all now what he means. Short term leisure trips to the other side of the continent aren't sustainable and are only viable because tourism heavily subsidises plane tickets prices.
  - majidazimi 6y ago
    If tourism + aviation is profitable combined, then why should we care? It's like Sony is not profitable by selling play station hardware. But game business unit is profitable because subscription income covers the hardware loss.
    - 6y ago
smackay 6y ago
The skies here in Portugal are a beautiful blue colour. Before, because of the stable air created by the Azores high pressure weather system, they would criss-crossed by the contrails of all the passenger jets flying over.
AniseAbyss 6y ago
Thats a fair take but when I look at my leftie social circle they all had gap years in New Zeeland and love shopping in New York.
- quonn 6y ago
  So? Those gap years barely register as far as flights are concerned.
- perfunctory 6y ago
  Too bad you are downvoted. What you are saying seems to be correct > Green Party supporters 'most likely' to fly long-haul https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/Green-Party-supporters-most-likely-to-fly-long-haul/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/Green-Party-supporte...
- lm28469 6y ago
  Some people are hypocrites but taking the plane once doesn't make you the devil. Being a """leftie""" doesn't have much to do with any of that either.
jillesvangurp 6y ago
It's long term a fixable thing. E.g. electrical planes will make this more sustainable for short hops (i.e. most business travel). Whether that's battery or some kind of fuel cell is up for debate of course. Both might ultimately play a role. The big realization with covid 19 however is that a lot of air travel is actually completely unnecessary. Businesses are adapting to having meetings online instead of in person and learning that they can work globally without having to bring people locally. I've now been on several projects where I worked with people on a daily basis that I never met in real life. This is becoming normal. A long time ago, I worked in a multinational that definitely was spending a bit too much on ferrying people around the planet to attend meetings. The most extreme version of this that I witnessed was a bi-monthly "sprint" planning with 13 teams in one room flown from basically India, Europe, etc. to Chicago. And yes, this is just about the least agile form of scrum that I've ever encountered and also about as much of a waste of time and kerosene as you'd expect. Also, I've never seen that many post-its in 1 room after that meeting and hope I never have to deal with that level of corporate insanity again.
- penagwin 6y ago
  Without some decent advances in battery technology I have strong doubts about electric planes being common for commercial flights. This is just based on the wh/weight ratio - lithium batteries are far heavier then oil based fuel per watt hour, and aviation is incredibly weight sensitive.
  - redisman 6y ago
    More likely is a liquid fuel generated in a net zero carbon way.
  - jillesvangurp 6y ago
    What matters is two things: range & cost (kwh, maintenance & overhauls). For that battery is becoming unbeatable on short hops and longer hops pretty soon after. Basically if it flies cheaper, battery is going to win in the air as well. R&D done by hundreds of battery tech companies will help improve the range of already flying (or soon to fly) electrical planes to the point where the range becomes useful to somebody; or at least useful enough that the cost argument becomes decisive. There are a few planes in the process of certification that have useful but modest range that use battery tech from a few years ago. The price of certification is that you have to pick some tech and stick with it for a few years. Successors to these planes with more recent tech would probably get about 1.5-2x the range. That's roughly what Bye Aviation and Eviation are talking about for successors to their current first generation tech. To be clear that's just swapping out tech they picked a few years ago for the kind of stuff that Tesla is talking about next month. The fallacy in this argument is believing we need to match A320s, Boeing 787s, etc. specs to be able to match their cost per passenger. This is simply not true. Big jets get benefits out of fuel efficiency because fuel is stupendously expensive. That's literally the only reason to spend hundreds of million on a super complicated piece of technology that burns tens of thousands of $ of fuel per trip. This is not the case for electrical planes. Bigger ones are actually less efficient and the smaller ones are ultimately going to be cheap enough that you can simply get more of those to match the passenger volume. At the list price of the Eviation Alice (900kwh, 700 miles, 9 passengers + 2 pilots) of 3.5M$, you can easily buy the 20 or so you'd need to transport the number of passengers you'd typically cram in a A320 and still save a bit of cash. Eviation is not likely to ship the kind of volumes to allow airlines to make that kind of choice any time soon. But think autonomous planes flying much further and cheaper in a few decades and you get the picture. At some point, A320s stop making sense. It's mostly a matter of volume production and certification. Battery tech improvements during the time it will take to do that will help but are far less essential and partially already a done deal. More is better though; or rather less is more in terms of cost.
phonebucket 6y ago
I agree that current levels of flying are likely excessive and unsustainable. But I think it's important to ask the right questions and not just cry out 'shut it down'. > Air travel is ecologically unsustainable. Too much air travel is ecologically unsustainable. But then again, that's more or less a tautology. What is interesting it to work out how much air travel is sustainable. > This archaic sector and transition that part of the economy to something more future sustainable. Sounds good to me. What is that something?
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  Hyperloop? All-electric high-speed rail? Minimum standards for aircraft emissions? CO2 tax on airline tickets - possibly a cap-and-trade system where every person in a country get N-many carbon credits they can trade in a free market to people that want to fly more-often? A problem any of this introduces is that (modern) airline travel still has comparable CO2-per-passenger-mile values compared to driving by car[1], so it’s not fair to say that flying is worst (nor the best) way to travel,]. I understand that, I’m general, we should still prefer people fly to Disney World in the summer than drive - or take a cruise ship - as shipping has the worst emissions-per-passenger-mile due to heavy use of “bunker fuel”. [1]According to Wikipedia’s page on aircraft economy. Ctrl+F for “comparison to ground transport”.
rocqua 6y ago
For the Netherlands, being a flight hub is (considered to be) a massive boost to the economy. Hence we want KLM to keep flying so that Amsterdam remains a flight-hub.
- Freak_NL 6y ago
  Who's 'we'? There are three factions in this debate in the Netherlands. Most Dutch couldn't care less about KLM-Air France since it stopped being the national airline (nostalgia aside, KLM-Air France is just another big international airline). A large part of this group just wants cheap tickets to sunny holiday locations, and usually fly with price-fighters like EasyJet (not KLM-Air France). Some more commercially minded folk do feel that we need a strong KLM-Air France and have its hub of Schiphol airport grow to act as the engine block of our economy. Then there is the non-negligible number of Dutch who would like to look forward to a future that is more sustainable than what we have now, and who feel that we could really do with a little less flying overall. Also that the boost-to-the-economy argument is tenuous at best. The opposition to opening Lelystad Airport as an annex for mainport Schiphol is proof that this is not just a fringe group of NIMBY's.
  - bkor 6y ago
    The people who were able to pump billions of EUR into KLM. So basically VVD. It doesn't really seem to matter that others have a different opinion. What matters is that billions go into an unsustainable company, were I mean unsustainable on basis of money. Follow the money did an article on KLM. Giving money to KLM is like throwing your money away, it such a poor investment. It's worse than just donating. Instead of that you could also e.g. invest that money in the off-gas transition. Meaning, insulate houses. That would help the economy, help the ecological goals, etc. Instead, KLM gets money but in a weird way, all kinds of unrealistic conditions. It's interesting how it doesn't make sense to give KLM money either ecological wise, nor economical. Still, they get billions.
  - rocqua 6y ago
    The government in general, and to a certain extent me as-well (despite me voting left of D66). The fact that Schiphol is a major hub helps make us a bigger player in international trade. It helps setting up main offices here (which bring in decent tax, and maybe some jobs too). In general, on this issue, I trust the VVD to get the economic side somewhat correct. They are pretty smart people, and not totally evil. And they care a lot about the economic side. So I tend to believe them when they say 'this will be good for the economy'. Especially when they come up with an underlying mechanism that seems quite plausible to me.
mensetmanusman 6y ago
Just enforce syngas airplanes, boom solved
gspr 6y ago
> Air travel is ecologically unsustainable. No. Air travel is about 5% of GHG emissions. A lot of the remaining 95% can be gotten rid of without giving up any quality of life. We can keep air travel, no problem.
- mantas 6y ago
  A lot of air travel can be gotten rid of without giving up any quality of life :)

perfunctory 6y ago

Not sure why you get downvoted. The pre-corona aviation growth rate was a real problem. > Aviation could consume a quarter of 1.5C carbon budget by 2050 https://www.carbonbrief.org/aviation-consume-quarter-carbon-budget https://www.carbonbrief.org/aviation-consume-quarter-carbon-...

PeterStuer 6y ago
I think many people are still thinking of this as a temporary crisis that hopefully we can forget asap and turn back to "normal" as if this part of 2020 never happened. It is understandable as this crisis has not been easy on anyone. However, I would dare to expect more from a long term policy perspective. There are many things that were unsustainable with our socio-economic lifestyle long before the Corona crisis. While we can not prevent the impacts on the individual people businesses, we could use the funds that are rightfully mobilized to aid them to shape a "new" economy that is more aligned with the coming climate crisis. We did this in the past (also much too late) e.g. with the coal mining sector in Belgium. For a long time we tried to keep that activity alive just because 'jobs, jobs, jobs'. It took decades before politics was ready to stop trowing good money after bad, and create regional re-conversion funds to turn those local economies around and give them a 'new' economic activity model that did have a future. This is why I would advocate a scenario that spend on those people/companies impacted in industries such as aviation to turn them towards to other more sustainable parts of the future economy rather than just keep poring in money to let them cling to an ever more precarious activity.
goatinaboat 6y ago
The pre-corona aviation growth rate was a real problem. The data centre industry emits as much CO2 as aviation, see how far you get on here proposing that we need to do less computing, to save the planet!
- perfunctory 6y ago
  Yes! We need to do less computing too. Much less. See, I said it.
  - goatinaboat 6y ago
    We need to do less computing too. I didn’t even mention the cost of desktop computing running all that shitty JavaScript. Probably at least as much CO2 again from just the ads.
- redisman 6y ago
  Data centers are much easier to turn carbon neutral though. "Just" switch out the electricity provider. Flying with something other than jet fuel is more of an existential risk to the industry.

doikor 6y ago

Aviation is the one field where fossil fuels will stay around for a long time just do to the energy density and the fact that the plane gets lighter as you burn fuel. Almost any other industry can switch to mostly carbon neutral energy sources. So if we want to travel long distances fast there really isn't much of a realistic option. Though short flights (1 to 2h) should be replaced by rail when it makes sense (no sea to cross etc)

walkingolof 6y ago
Byproducts from the foresting industry (and other industries) can provide renewable aviation fuel soon. https://www.thelocal.se/20180313/swedens-forests-could-fuel-air-travel-researchers-say https://www.thelocal.se/20180313/swedens-forests-could-fuel-...
AlotOfReading 6y ago
That's not a realistic option outside Europe and parts of Asia. I'm in SF, the nearest major cities are LA (1h flight) and Seattle (1.5h flight). Those are 10h and 21h by train on a good day, respectively. On a bad day, double that. Additionally, trains are only 40% or so more efficient in terms of pollution. I suspect in most of the world you're far better off taking the plane and putting the fare difference into carbon credits.
- doikor 6y ago
  You just have a shitty rail system in most of US. The solution is to fix it not fly more. Also trains are a lot more then 40% more efficient in terms of pollution. Eurostar for example 6g per km traveled while airplane is 100g (long haul flights much worse for short ones). Though electric train powered by coal can get to around 40g per km and even worse for diesel trains.
  - AlotOfReading 6y ago
    We have the track, just not the companies doing passenger service. The ones we used to have all went bankrupt during the great depression and disappeared. A similar story played out across the Americas in Canada, Brazil, and Argentina, all of which have expansive rail networks, but limited passenger service. As for efficiency, I'll go by amtrak's numbers [1], which claim to be 36% better than domestic air. [1] https://www.amtrak.com/travel-green https://www.amtrak.com/travel-green

FartyMcFarter 6y ago

"Having kids is ecologically unsustainable." There, I've made an equally unnuanced statement, now what? I don't think things are that black and white. A moderate amount of air travel is not unsustainable per se, I would think.

PeterStuer 6y ago
Moderate amounts of almost everything was sustainable. Nothing is moderate about our current day consumption and extraction, and moderation is not compatible with our current socio-economic "growth or death" model.
- skrebbel 6y ago
  This still holds for having kids as well though.
  - MacsHeadroom 6y ago
    Yes, so what? Plenty of people are antinatalist, myself included. Thankfully, birth rates rapidly decline as nations develop. It's a problem that fixes itself. But it is a problem.
lm28469 6y ago
I think we all now what he means. Short term leisure trips to the other side of the continent aren't sustainable and are only viable because tourism heavily subsidises plane tickets prices.
- majidazimi 6y ago
  If tourism + aviation is profitable combined, then why should we care? It's like Sony is not profitable by selling play station hardware. But game business unit is profitable because subscription income covers the hardware loss.
  - 6y ago

smackay 6y ago

The skies here in Portugal are a beautiful blue colour. Before, because of the stable air created by the Azores high pressure weather system, they would criss-crossed by the contrails of all the passenger jets flying over.

AniseAbyss 6y ago

Thats a fair take but when I look at my leftie social circle they all had gap years in New Zeeland and love shopping in New York.

quonn 6y ago
So? Those gap years barely register as far as flights are concerned.
perfunctory 6y ago
Too bad you are downvoted. What you are saying seems to be correct > Green Party supporters 'most likely' to fly long-haul https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/Green-Party-supporters-most-likely-to-fly-long-haul/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/Green-Party-supporte...
lm28469 6y ago
Some people are hypocrites but taking the plane once doesn't make you the devil. Being a """leftie""" doesn't have much to do with any of that either.

jillesvangurp 6y ago

It's long term a fixable thing. E.g. electrical planes will make this more sustainable for short hops (i.e. most business travel). Whether that's battery or some kind of fuel cell is up for debate of course. Both might ultimately play a role. The big realization with covid 19 however is that a lot of air travel is actually completely unnecessary. Businesses are adapting to having meetings online instead of in person and learning that they can work globally without having to bring people locally. I've now been on several projects where I worked with people on a daily basis that I never met in real life. This is becoming normal. A long time ago, I worked in a multinational that definitely was spending a bit too much on ferrying people around the planet to attend meetings. The most extreme version of this that I witnessed was a bi-monthly "sprint" planning with 13 teams in one room flown from basically India, Europe, etc. to Chicago. And yes, this is just about the least agile form of scrum that I've ever encountered and also about as much of a waste of time and kerosene as you'd expect. Also, I've never seen that many post-its in 1 room after that meeting and hope I never have to deal with that level of corporate insanity again.

penagwin 6y ago
Without some decent advances in battery technology I have strong doubts about electric planes being common for commercial flights. This is just based on the wh/weight ratio - lithium batteries are far heavier then oil based fuel per watt hour, and aviation is incredibly weight sensitive.
- redisman 6y ago
  More likely is a liquid fuel generated in a net zero carbon way.
- jillesvangurp 6y ago
  What matters is two things: range & cost (kwh, maintenance & overhauls). For that battery is becoming unbeatable on short hops and longer hops pretty soon after. Basically if it flies cheaper, battery is going to win in the air as well. R&D done by hundreds of battery tech companies will help improve the range of already flying (or soon to fly) electrical planes to the point where the range becomes useful to somebody; or at least useful enough that the cost argument becomes decisive. There are a few planes in the process of certification that have useful but modest range that use battery tech from a few years ago. The price of certification is that you have to pick some tech and stick with it for a few years. Successors to these planes with more recent tech would probably get about 1.5-2x the range. That's roughly what Bye Aviation and Eviation are talking about for successors to their current first generation tech. To be clear that's just swapping out tech they picked a few years ago for the kind of stuff that Tesla is talking about next month. The fallacy in this argument is believing we need to match A320s, Boeing 787s, etc. specs to be able to match their cost per passenger. This is simply not true. Big jets get benefits out of fuel efficiency because fuel is stupendously expensive. That's literally the only reason to spend hundreds of million on a super complicated piece of technology that burns tens of thousands of $ of fuel per trip. This is not the case for electrical planes. Bigger ones are actually less efficient and the smaller ones are ultimately going to be cheap enough that you can simply get more of those to match the passenger volume. At the list price of the Eviation Alice (900kwh, 700 miles, 9 passengers + 2 pilots) of 3.5M$, you can easily buy the 20 or so you'd need to transport the number of passengers you'd typically cram in a A320 and still save a bit of cash. Eviation is not likely to ship the kind of volumes to allow airlines to make that kind of choice any time soon. But think autonomous planes flying much further and cheaper in a few decades and you get the picture. At some point, A320s stop making sense. It's mostly a matter of volume production and certification. Battery tech improvements during the time it will take to do that will help but are far less essential and partially already a done deal. More is better though; or rather less is more in terms of cost.

phonebucket 6y ago

I agree that current levels of flying are likely excessive and unsustainable. But I think it's important to ask the right questions and not just cry out 'shut it down'. > Air travel is ecologically unsustainable. Too much air travel is ecologically unsustainable. But then again, that's more or less a tautology. What is interesting it to work out how much air travel is sustainable. > This archaic sector and transition that part of the economy to something more future sustainable. Sounds good to me. What is that something?

DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
Hyperloop? All-electric high-speed rail? Minimum standards for aircraft emissions? CO2 tax on airline tickets - possibly a cap-and-trade system where every person in a country get N-many carbon credits they can trade in a free market to people that want to fly more-often? A problem any of this introduces is that (modern) airline travel still has comparable CO2-per-passenger-mile values compared to driving by car[1], so it’s not fair to say that flying is worst (nor the best) way to travel,]. I understand that, I’m general, we should still prefer people fly to Disney World in the summer than drive - or take a cruise ship - as shipping has the worst emissions-per-passenger-mile due to heavy use of “bunker fuel”. [1]According to Wikipedia’s page on aircraft economy. Ctrl+F for “comparison to ground transport”.

rocqua 6y ago

For the Netherlands, being a flight hub is (considered to be) a massive boost to the economy. Hence we want KLM to keep flying so that Amsterdam remains a flight-hub.

Freak_NL 6y ago
Who's 'we'? There are three factions in this debate in the Netherlands. Most Dutch couldn't care less about KLM-Air France since it stopped being the national airline (nostalgia aside, KLM-Air France is just another big international airline). A large part of this group just wants cheap tickets to sunny holiday locations, and usually fly with price-fighters like EasyJet (not KLM-Air France). Some more commercially minded folk do feel that we need a strong KLM-Air France and have its hub of Schiphol airport grow to act as the engine block of our economy. Then there is the non-negligible number of Dutch who would like to look forward to a future that is more sustainable than what we have now, and who feel that we could really do with a little less flying overall. Also that the boost-to-the-economy argument is tenuous at best. The opposition to opening Lelystad Airport as an annex for mainport Schiphol is proof that this is not just a fringe group of NIMBY's.
- bkor 6y ago
  The people who were able to pump billions of EUR into KLM. So basically VVD. It doesn't really seem to matter that others have a different opinion. What matters is that billions go into an unsustainable company, were I mean unsustainable on basis of money. Follow the money did an article on KLM. Giving money to KLM is like throwing your money away, it such a poor investment. It's worse than just donating. Instead of that you could also e.g. invest that money in the off-gas transition. Meaning, insulate houses. That would help the economy, help the ecological goals, etc. Instead, KLM gets money but in a weird way, all kinds of unrealistic conditions. It's interesting how it doesn't make sense to give KLM money either ecological wise, nor economical. Still, they get billions.
- rocqua 6y ago
  The government in general, and to a certain extent me as-well (despite me voting left of D66). The fact that Schiphol is a major hub helps make us a bigger player in international trade. It helps setting up main offices here (which bring in decent tax, and maybe some jobs too). In general, on this issue, I trust the VVD to get the economic side somewhat correct. They are pretty smart people, and not totally evil. And they care a lot about the economic side. So I tend to believe them when they say 'this will be good for the economy'. Especially when they come up with an underlying mechanism that seems quite plausible to me.

mensetmanusman 6y ago

Just enforce syngas airplanes, boom solved

gspr 6y ago

> Air travel is ecologically unsustainable. No. Air travel is about 5% of GHG emissions. A lot of the remaining 95% can be gotten rid of without giving up any quality of life. We can keep air travel, no problem.

mantas 6y ago
A lot of air travel can be gotten rid of without giving up any quality of life :)