4 ms·

I refuse to fly at all nowadays. Even on a relatively short flight, I would be responsible for more greenhouse gases than all my other consumption and transport

by Ma8ee 5y ago

I refuse to fly at all nowadays. Even on a relatively short flight, I would be responsible for more greenhouse gases than all my other consumption and transports for several months give rise to.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
In case you live in an US style suburb detached single family home lifestyle, I feel like suburb living contributes far more greenhouse gases than a short flight, since living in dense communities reduces how far all mass has to move, and suburb living increases how far all mass has to move.
Aloha 5y ago
As an American not flying simply means not traveling anywhere further than 500 miles from home, or it means an extra 2-3 days to get there. It means never really leaving North America, heck, parts of North America are not accessible but by air. I don't have high speed rail options, I can either, take the (slow) train (if it goes there), take the bus, drive or fly. Removing flying also removed the ability for the poor to travel. That doesn't strike me as fair or reasonable either. I do try to minimize my flying time, but, none? That's not a reasonable option for me.
- Ma8ee 5y ago
  Train connections between countries are quite miserable in big parts of Europe too, but with increased demand, they are quite rapidly improving. Maybe that would happen in the US too if people used the trains more. For many relative short distance flights, you don't lose that much time taking the train. If you take into account that most airports are far from the city centers, and you have to be there early to check in luggage, go through security, spend 20 minutes boarding the plane and then wait to get of, wait for luggage and then take the time to get to your final destination from the airport, total travel time by train is often faster than by plane when the flight time is an hour or less. The train usually go from city center to city center, you can show up as late before departure as you dare, no security on no luggage check. The leg room is better and nowadays all trains I have been traveling in Europe have had decent wifi so you can use the time for work or entertaining yourself. And that poor people fly is usually not the problem. They don't go to Hawaii or Singapore or Rome just for fun. I understand that flying is important for some people, in particular when you have family in the other of the country or even on another continent. But we, as a world, certainly can't afford to fly just for pleasure.
  - Aloha 5y ago
    It's rare that I'm getting on a flight that lasts less that 3 hours, unless I really need to be there right now, or it's a connecting flight. There however is functionally no passenger rail network in the United States, outside of the northeast corridor, trains are at most at a daily headway. It's not practical for me (or most people) to spend five days on the train to get from Seattle to Dallas, because I need to go to either Chicago or Los Angeles first. FWIW, The distance between Hawaii and Los Angeles is roughly comparable to that of Los Angeles and Newark, so you're also telling some kid in California that they can't visit their grandparents in New Jersey too. I think taxing non-connecting travel on short hop (sub 90 min) flights is a way to offset this. But even that is with controversy. So while I conceptually agree with you, your flight-free lifestyle ignores the reality of life (and geography) in North America.
    - Ma8ee 5y ago
      The problem is of course that the world can't afford the current life style, or as you call it, reality of life, of the people of North America. So the question really is, how important is that trip between Seattle and Dallas in the first place? Less than a month ago I spent 23 hours on different trains and an overnight ferry to let my children visit their grandparents that live in a different country. And since we do, rail connections are rapidly improving since there is a demand for them. And I know that isn't possible everywhere in the world. But if you really want your kids to spend time with their grandparents several times a year, then you better live closer to them. Even if it means a less interesting and well paying job. In our case, my wife and I are of different nationalities (and we are certainly not unique in this regard), so we can only live close to one set of grandparents. But that means that they kids only get to see the other pair of grandparents once, maybe twice a year, and we spend quite a bit of time on travel for that. If people and politicians would have taken the climate threat seriously a few decades ago, when scientists started to tell us that this is real and dire, then you would already drive around in an electric car, you would already have fast coast to coast high speed trains, and maybe even something like hydrogen fuelled airplanes. We already have all the money and technology to solve this. Unfortunately the most important ingredient is missing, and that is political will.

by Ma8ee 5y ago

I refuse to fly at all nowadays. Even on a relatively short flight, I would be responsible for more greenhouse gases than all my other consumption and transports for several months give rise to.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

In case you live in an US style suburb detached single family home lifestyle, I feel like suburb living contributes far more greenhouse gases than a short flight, since living in dense communities reduces how far all mass has to move, and suburb living increases how far all mass has to move.

Aloha 5y ago

As an American not flying simply means not traveling anywhere further than 500 miles from home, or it means an extra 2-3 days to get there. It means never really leaving North America, heck, parts of North America are not accessible but by air. I don't have high speed rail options, I can either, take the (slow) train (if it goes there), take the bus, drive or fly. Removing flying also removed the ability for the poor to travel. That doesn't strike me as fair or reasonable either. I do try to minimize my flying time, but, none? That's not a reasonable option for me.

Ma8ee 5y ago
Train connections between countries are quite miserable in big parts of Europe too, but with increased demand, they are quite rapidly improving. Maybe that would happen in the US too if people used the trains more. For many relative short distance flights, you don't lose that much time taking the train. If you take into account that most airports are far from the city centers, and you have to be there early to check in luggage, go through security, spend 20 minutes boarding the plane and then wait to get of, wait for luggage and then take the time to get to your final destination from the airport, total travel time by train is often faster than by plane when the flight time is an hour or less. The train usually go from city center to city center, you can show up as late before departure as you dare, no security on no luggage check. The leg room is better and nowadays all trains I have been traveling in Europe have had decent wifi so you can use the time for work or entertaining yourself. And that poor people fly is usually not the problem. They don't go to Hawaii or Singapore or Rome just for fun. I understand that flying is important for some people, in particular when you have family in the other of the country or even on another continent. But we, as a world, certainly can't afford to fly just for pleasure.
- Aloha 5y ago
  It's rare that I'm getting on a flight that lasts less that 3 hours, unless I really need to be there right now, or it's a connecting flight. There however is functionally no passenger rail network in the United States, outside of the northeast corridor, trains are at most at a daily headway. It's not practical for me (or most people) to spend five days on the train to get from Seattle to Dallas, because I need to go to either Chicago or Los Angeles first. FWIW, The distance between Hawaii and Los Angeles is roughly comparable to that of Los Angeles and Newark, so you're also telling some kid in California that they can't visit their grandparents in New Jersey too. I think taxing non-connecting travel on short hop (sub 90 min) flights is a way to offset this. But even that is with controversy. So while I conceptually agree with you, your flight-free lifestyle ignores the reality of life (and geography) in North America.
  - Ma8ee 5y ago
    The problem is of course that the world can't afford the current life style, or as you call it, reality of life, of the people of North America. So the question really is, how important is that trip between Seattle and Dallas in the first place? Less than a month ago I spent 23 hours on different trains and an overnight ferry to let my children visit their grandparents that live in a different country. And since we do, rail connections are rapidly improving since there is a demand for them. And I know that isn't possible everywhere in the world. But if you really want your kids to spend time with their grandparents several times a year, then you better live closer to them. Even if it means a less interesting and well paying job. In our case, my wife and I are of different nationalities (and we are certainly not unique in this regard), so we can only live close to one set of grandparents. But that means that they kids only get to see the other pair of grandparents once, maybe twice a year, and we spend quite a bit of time on travel for that. If people and politicians would have taken the climate threat seriously a few decades ago, when scientists started to tell us that this is real and dire, then you would already drive around in an electric car, you would already have fast coast to coast high speed trains, and maybe even something like hydrogen fuelled airplanes. We already have all the money and technology to solve this. Unfortunately the most important ingredient is missing, and that is political will.