3 ms·

> 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 confus

> 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.

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.