3 ms·
Someone is deciding that it's a good idea to pass legislation that would require airlines to remediate this. It would be nice if those people consider how much
by Nifty3929 4y ago
Someone is deciding that it's a good idea to pass legislation that would require airlines to remediate this. It would be nice if those people consider how much effort will be required to do so, and whether that is a good trade-off or not compared to the [presumed] health benefits. It would require airlines to indirectly pull labor from the production of things like housing, shoes, tweets, solar panels, etc. Every hour spent improving the safety of the air in planes could be spent doing other things.
I'm not sure if you would call this a command economy or not, but the force of law is a pretty strong command.
- ElevenLathe 4y agoAh well the answer is definitely no. Nobody in government or even the airline industry is considering 4th or 5th order effects like this, and likely never will (again, unless we decide to have a planned economy).
- Supermancho 4y agoI still remember the "vapor recovery" mechanisms implemented decades ago, in California, that now compete against newer car's internal recovery systems. These regulations often outlive their usefulness. Howabout recognizing there is inherent risk in flying, and adding the pollution as a broadcast/informed risk seems like an eco-friendly way to reduce air travel (and the pollution from that travel).