3 ms·
Most activities are bad for the environment, recreational activities are 'unproductive' and bad for the environment.
by nickff 6y ago
Most activities are bad for the environment, recreational activities are 'unproductive' and bad for the environment.
- beervirus 6y agoThis wastes more fuel per capita than most.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- missedthecue 6y agoPlanes are quite fuel efficient per passenger. Somewhere around 90mpg. Furthermore, I imagine this particular flight will free of baggage, lightening the load and improving efficiency even more. At any rate, most entertainment and recreational activities are bad for the environment, but as far as most of them go, this one is relatively clean.
- Johnny555 6y agoBut still, in 7 hours, a 500mph plane can go 3500 miles, so that's 38 gallons of fuel per passenger. A month's worth of gas for many people.
- brnt 6y agoNowadays, that amount lasts me two or three months!
- Johnny555 6y agoBack when the COVID isolation started in March, I put fuel stabilizer in our second car and filled up the tank (and hooked up a battery tender). I've driven it a few times, but the gas gauge still says "full" on that same tank of fuel. Even with the stabilizer I'm thinking that I need to take it out for a long drive to use up the fuel. At the rate things are going, I'm not sure I'll need the car for commuting until next summer.
- jonny_eh 6y ago> Planes are quite fuel efficient per passenger Not if they go "nowhere".
- octodog 6y agoNot an insightful comment. Airline travel is particularly bad.
- lightgreen 6y agoWell, obviously your comment is not insightful. How bad is airline travel? Like what's worse, taking one such flight once a year, or using a personal car to the office every day instead of taking a bus? Or is it worse to take one such flight once a year, or renting larger apartment which consumes more electricity due to air conditioning? (There's a simple answer to all these questions: carbon tax and market economy.)
- Zenbit_UX 6y ago> Well, obviously your comment is not insightful. Nope his comment was, yours isn't. > How bad is airline travel? What part about a journey to nowhere confuses you? Let me break it down: 1. That's not travel 2. It's quite bad for the environment compared to doing just about any other possible leisure activity - because that's what a trip to nowhere is, not travel. > Or is it worse to take one such flight once a year, or renting larger apartment which consumes more electricity due to air conditioning? A truly irrelevant question to top off the delight that is your contribution to this thread. Is your ~20% larger apartment's AC fueled by burning methane?
- lightgreen 6y ago> That's not travel Let me put it another way: What's worse: a) take a flight nowhere, and spend the rest of a vacation in a nearby town, reachable by train b) take a flight to some remote location and spend a week there ? > Is your ~20% larger apartment's AC fueled by burning methane? AC is fueled by whatever electicity is produced from. Worldwide, less than half of electricity is produced from more or less safe sources. > 20% When choosing between a flat in a city and a house in a countryside the apartment area difference can be easily 200% for the same rent. > A truly irrelevant question I'm sorry I did not explained how is that relevant. Trying to be spend money on what's "good" is a path nowhere. It will likely lead to the same CO2 emissions, because any person does not know how much CO2 this particular activity produces per dollar spent. (E. g. how much CO2 was emitted to produce this can of beer?) CO2 emissions can be included in the price of goods (carbon tax), that way people won't have to behave "good" to be actually good for the environment. Like if someone wants to take a flight nowhere, go ahead, take it, pay for CO2 emissions, but restrict themselves on doing something else which emits CO2.