4 ms·
Seems very wasteful to be taking extra, unnecessary flights for perks, no matter how big. I don’t care about the fliers’ money, that’s theirs to do what they wa
by poidos 4y ago
Seems very wasteful to be taking extra, unnecessary flights for perks, no matter how big. I don’t care about the fliers’ money, that’s theirs to do what they want with. But the environmental costs are non-nil (even accounting for the fact that those flights would be going regardless of if they fly on them) and can’t be worth the perks for these privileged few.
- woleium 4y agoI guess if the plane is going anyway..
- xwdv 4y agoI don’t understand the environmental shaming. Does the plane work harder for each person that boards? Seems like the plane is going to fly the route anyway. We’re not talking private jets here.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- sokoloff 4y agoIt does work harder by weight carried. There is some induced drag for every pound of lift and, in unaccelerated flight (most of it), lift and weight are exactly balanced. My piston-engine airplane goes about 3% faster on the same fuel flow (power) at the end of a long flight than the start. That’s the effect of reduced drag from the lower weight.
- xwdv 4y agoOk, so what’s the environmental impact of the individual?
- 1659447091 4y agoI am not sure there would be much difference in impact since the airline would fill unused weight allowance with other cargo.
- Spooky23 4y agoIf you’re not reading a used book using a solar powered flashlight, it’s navel gazing.
- n8ta 4y agoFlying in a plane is basically the most carbon intensive thing normal people do. It's something like 1/4 ton of CO2 per hour per person. Per capita carbon emission in the US are ~15ton/yr. (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1049662/fossil-us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-per-person/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1049662/fossil-us-carbon...)