3 ms·

My understanding is that this advice wasn't based on keeping Coronavirus numbers low but on reducing the damage caused by economic loss to parts of the worlds p

My understanding is that this advice wasn't based on keeping Coronavirus numbers low but on reducing the damage caused by economic loss to parts of the worlds population. My country, Australia, has done amazingly well at containing the virus locally but I'm sure that a number of smaller, less economically developed countries nearby have citzens that are feeling the economic damage. How many children in these countries are going hungry?

Mediterraneo10 6y ago
Not only economic damage, but environmental damage as well. According to an anecdote I read by someone who works with wildlife-conversation efforts in East Africa, the loss of income from tourism in 2020 and 2021 is going to impact those efforts. If leaving the land untouched isn't generating income from tourists, then poaching and illegal landuse increase. Similarly, if Chilean Patagonia isn't doing well from tourism to its natural beauty, there is less resistance to industries coming down from Santiago and building hydro infrastructure all over the region.
- carlmr 6y ago
  On the flipside the constant airplane tourism is destroying nature on a global, not a local scale. I would personally guess that the environmental impact of 0 tourism would be much better on the global scale.
  - carlhjerpe 6y ago
    A fully booked jetliner is consuming less fuel per traveled distance than a car with one person in it. They're not as bad as you might think they are. The amount of delivery driving has definitely increased with corona, but there's less people commuting to work.
    - carlmr 6y ago
      People don't routinely drive thousands of kilometers with their cars to go on vacation, they do however fly thousands of kilometers, because it's so fast. In delivery I agree with you, even with boxes, it's much more efficient for one delivery truck to drive to 1000 households than 1000 households to drive into the city, even with public transit.
      - carlhjerpe 6y ago
        People do however drive tens of thousands of kilometers a year in their cars. My point isn't that less flying isn't good, I don't even know what my point is, probably just that there are many points to consider

Mediterraneo10 6y ago

Not only economic damage, but environmental damage as well. According to an anecdote I read by someone who works with wildlife-conversation efforts in East Africa, the loss of income from tourism in 2020 and 2021 is going to impact those efforts. If leaving the land untouched isn't generating income from tourists, then poaching and illegal landuse increase. Similarly, if Chilean Patagonia isn't doing well from tourism to its natural beauty, there is less resistance to industries coming down from Santiago and building hydro infrastructure all over the region.

carlmr 6y ago
On the flipside the constant airplane tourism is destroying nature on a global, not a local scale. I would personally guess that the environmental impact of 0 tourism would be much better on the global scale.
- carlhjerpe 6y ago
  A fully booked jetliner is consuming less fuel per traveled distance than a car with one person in it. They're not as bad as you might think they are. The amount of delivery driving has definitely increased with corona, but there's less people commuting to work.
  - carlmr 6y ago
    People don't routinely drive thousands of kilometers with their cars to go on vacation, they do however fly thousands of kilometers, because it's so fast. In delivery I agree with you, even with boxes, it's much more efficient for one delivery truck to drive to 1000 households than 1000 households to drive into the city, even with public transit.
    - carlhjerpe 6y ago
      People do however drive tens of thousands of kilometers a year in their cars. My point isn't that less flying isn't good, I don't even know what my point is, probably just that there are many points to consider