5 ms·

Planes are basically pollution machines, so it's quite good news if people can refrain from travelling in the air (most of time unnecessarily)

metalliqaz 6y ago
Are they any machines that aren't?
- kirubakaran 6y ago
  Bicycles, sailboats, windmills ...
  - metalliqaz 6y ago
    When modern people discuss machines, that's not what we are talking about. None of those are practical for modern travel. We're talking trains, planes, and automobiles.
  - 11235813213455 6y ago
    although I love sailboats (compared to motor boats), they still pollute indirectly (most cruise boats have engines, they need maintenance which pollute, ..) Bicycles too need maintenance, but it's so ridiculously insignificant compared to cars (at least my bike) that we can round to 0!
- Rury 6y ago
  Of course. Operating a foot-treadle floor loom doesn't pollute. Stirling engines don't necessarily pollute (unless you consider kinetic energy to be pollution). Actually machines don't inherently pollute. Ones which do, only pollute because they're operating off of or on something which pollutes (e.g. the burning of fossil fuels).
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    It depends on the definition of pollute. Pollute can mean anything that increases entropy. Pollution can mean anything that alters the environment, and that certainly includes any human activity. Pollution can mean anything that increases the probability that the parameters of the environment that allow human life will change. This can include human activity in sufficient amounts that cause environmental damage. Simples example is too many people existing, and their waste causing issues with water sources and then having to build sewage facilities and dealing with the side effects of that. The point is that everything affects everything, and there is no “pure” solution. Causing pollution of one type might help mitigate pollution of another type, and the trade offs are impossible to completely analyze. Obviously some pollution (emissions from fossil fuels) are easy to figure out and blame. But the benefits of those are also incalculable, such as increased life expectancy due to ability to travel, plastics to reduce disease transfer, etc. But at its root, human activity, namely living longer and increasing number of human lives is itself the biggest polluting factor.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
sumedh 6y ago
If I am not mistaken container ships are the biggest polluters. Why not focus on the main issue?
- AnotherGoodName 6y ago
  No. They do emit a lot of sulfur oxides. Not as much as power generation but still a lot. Sometimes this gets simplified to container ships are 'one of the' biggest polluters. Which is pretty misleading since 'one of the' is such a weak phrase, doubly so when simplifying it down to a specific type of pollution.
- 11235813213455 6y ago
  > Why not focus on the main issue? This is a very common answer and attitude in general, that I find terrible. Even if something represents 5% of the pollution compared to another 60% source, it's worth focusing on those 5% (just random numbers for the example)
  - sumedh 6y ago
    Its a common answer because its practical. Saying we should work on the 5% sounds good on paper but it does not work in real life. So instead be practical and focus on the main thing (whatever that is) and go from there.
    - 11235813213455 6y ago
      "it does not work in real life" What makes you assert so? Our experiences and the acceleration of climate changes shouldn't make us too assertive or negative, but rather humble and devoted to help the environment. It's a huge optimization problem, small gains are big gains. The average person lifestyle is quite a nonsense: an electric toothbrush+razor+vacuum cleaner and many other unnecessary devices, cosmetic products/makeup wrapped in plastics, a car and house with air conditioning, pets(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_food#cite_note-8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_food#cite_note-8), plane travels for holidays, 500kg of trash per year. All this should be optimized, from the smallest to the largest sources of pollution. I started with myself: I don't do any of the things listed above, my yearly garbage is 10 empty plastics bags of rice, and a few soap bars, toothpaste, bike tubes wrappings.
eplanit 6y ago
I am surprised that there is not more celebration of the drastic reduction in air travel. Aside from the near-term economic impact on those in the industry (which is horrible), there is nothing else but upside. The obvious ecological gains are great, of course. In the past 2-3 decades, air travel became far too cheap, and grotesquely overused. It became the norm for a family vacation to mean flying to the destination, and a casual activity (hey, let's fly to X for lunch today!) for many. Cheap airfare + Instagram made a nightmare for many great destinations. I'd welcome a much smaller-scale air travel industry, even if prices per ticket increase substantially.

metalliqaz 6y ago

Are they any machines that aren't?

kirubakaran 6y ago
Bicycles, sailboats, windmills ...
- metalliqaz 6y ago
  When modern people discuss machines, that's not what we are talking about. None of those are practical for modern travel. We're talking trains, planes, and automobiles.
- 11235813213455 6y ago
  although I love sailboats (compared to motor boats), they still pollute indirectly (most cruise boats have engines, they need maintenance which pollute, ..) Bicycles too need maintenance, but it's so ridiculously insignificant compared to cars (at least my bike) that we can round to 0!
Rury 6y ago
Of course. Operating a foot-treadle floor loom doesn't pollute. Stirling engines don't necessarily pollute (unless you consider kinetic energy to be pollution). Actually machines don't inherently pollute. Ones which do, only pollute because they're operating off of or on something which pollutes (e.g. the burning of fossil fuels).
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  It depends on the definition of pollute. Pollute can mean anything that increases entropy. Pollution can mean anything that alters the environment, and that certainly includes any human activity. Pollution can mean anything that increases the probability that the parameters of the environment that allow human life will change. This can include human activity in sufficient amounts that cause environmental damage. Simples example is too many people existing, and their waste causing issues with water sources and then having to build sewage facilities and dealing with the side effects of that. The point is that everything affects everything, and there is no “pure” solution. Causing pollution of one type might help mitigate pollution of another type, and the trade offs are impossible to completely analyze. Obviously some pollution (emissions from fossil fuels) are easy to figure out and blame. But the benefits of those are also incalculable, such as increased life expectancy due to ability to travel, plastics to reduce disease transfer, etc. But at its root, human activity, namely living longer and increasing number of human lives is itself the biggest polluting factor.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

sumedh 6y ago

If I am not mistaken container ships are the biggest polluters. Why not focus on the main issue?

AnotherGoodName 6y ago
No. They do emit a lot of sulfur oxides. Not as much as power generation but still a lot. Sometimes this gets simplified to container ships are 'one of the' biggest polluters. Which is pretty misleading since 'one of the' is such a weak phrase, doubly so when simplifying it down to a specific type of pollution.
11235813213455 6y ago
> Why not focus on the main issue? This is a very common answer and attitude in general, that I find terrible. Even if something represents 5% of the pollution compared to another 60% source, it's worth focusing on those 5% (just random numbers for the example)
- sumedh 6y ago
  Its a common answer because its practical. Saying we should work on the 5% sounds good on paper but it does not work in real life. So instead be practical and focus on the main thing (whatever that is) and go from there.
  - 11235813213455 6y ago
    "it does not work in real life" What makes you assert so? Our experiences and the acceleration of climate changes shouldn't make us too assertive or negative, but rather humble and devoted to help the environment. It's a huge optimization problem, small gains are big gains. The average person lifestyle is quite a nonsense: an electric toothbrush+razor+vacuum cleaner and many other unnecessary devices, cosmetic products/makeup wrapped in plastics, a car and house with air conditioning, pets(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_food#cite_note-8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_food#cite_note-8), plane travels for holidays, 500kg of trash per year. All this should be optimized, from the smallest to the largest sources of pollution. I started with myself: I don't do any of the things listed above, my yearly garbage is 10 empty plastics bags of rice, and a few soap bars, toothpaste, bike tubes wrappings.

eplanit 6y ago

I am surprised that there is not more celebration of the drastic reduction in air travel. Aside from the near-term economic impact on those in the industry (which is horrible), there is nothing else but upside. The obvious ecological gains are great, of course. In the past 2-3 decades, air travel became far too cheap, and grotesquely overused. It became the norm for a family vacation to mean flying to the destination, and a casual activity (hey, let's fly to X for lunch today!) for many. Cheap airfare + Instagram made a nightmare for many great destinations. I'd welcome a much smaller-scale air travel industry, even if prices per ticket increase substantially.