4 ms·
GA in Alaska requires less public infrastructure than elsewhere because there are more planes that can land on and take off from water, snow, and unpaved surfac
by snowwrestler 4y ago
GA in Alaska requires less public infrastructure than elsewhere because there are more planes that can land on and take off from water, snow, and unpaved surfaces.
Also Alaska can easily afford basic infrastructure, heck they pay an annual stipend to permanent residents.
- mschuster91 4y ago> Also Alaska can easily afford basic infrastructure, heck they pay an annual stipend to permanent residents. The question is not if they can afford it because they obviously can, the question is if this is long-term sustainable - not just from a CO2 emissions point, but you also need pilots, the planes or boats themselves, and all of that to supply cities that don't even manage to get 100 residents [per 1, at least 23 fall below that limit]?! Maybe just accept for once that there are areas so remote it isn't worth the effort to supply them. We should return these areas to nature. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Alaska https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Alaska
- snowwrestler 4y agoYou’re not going to save the world by kicking a few hundred Alaskans off their property.
- mschuster91 4y agoIt's not (just) about saving the world. It's actually the ability to keep them supplied that is at question, given the current immense shortage on labor and fuel prices that are not going to go down.