4 ms·

Why mix regulation of two effects (sound and emissions)? It's smarter to write regulation for each uniquely and directly. Eg. - Sound from air traffic shall

• msm_ 4y ago
  I agree with you in principle, but it's probably easier to enforce speed limits than sound and emissions (because both are hard to measure while in air, in contrast to speed).
  • capableweb 4y ago
    Sound would be measured at the ground, I presume, as no one is really bothered by loud things up in the sky, but by the ground. For emission, require airlines/airplanes to have a emission-sensor installed that automatically measure the emission. As a part of take off, make it mandatory to check it's working and as a part of landing, make sure it sent there data to where it has to go.
  • cat_plus_plus 4y ago
    You know you can just tax fuel according to amount of carbon right?
• c0balt 4y ago
  “If the penalty for a crime is a fine, then that law only exists for the lower class”
  • cdogl 4y ago
    Be careful witn that reductive reasoning. Fines are an entirely reasonable mechanism to regulate an industry that is highly competitive with tight margins.
    • reillyse 4y ago
      You are contradicting the commenter but I don't think you understand fully what they mean. I took their comment to mean that rich people won't care about a fine and will happily continue polluting. Your statement about "tight margins" is exactly what they are referring to. Only people who care about "tight margins" i.e. poor people, i.e the majority of us, will be effected while rich people who do a disproportionate amount of damage will be able to shrug off the law.
      • super256 4y ago
        > Only people who care about "tight margins" i.e. poor people No. Rich people, who fly business and first class still fly with the same airlines as poor people. The margins of the entire industry are thin.
      • ericd 4y ago
        I'd keep in mind that when people talk about the rich doing a disproportionate amount of the damage, if you're American, you're almost certainly who they're talking about. It's the normal American lifestyle that's doing the bulk of the damage, not specifically the richest of the US. The car-centered suburban lifestyle of much of the middle class is an environmental disaster. But sure, bigger houses made with more material and more flights by richer Americans aren't helping.
        • Retric 4y ago
          The middle class in America have a small impact on climate change just like they have a small impact on most things. If you want to understand what’s going on look into who was running disinformation campaigns and actively sabotaging efforts to add carbon taxes etc. People love to blame SUV’s because they are in peoples faces, but replace every American SUV with an EV and the impact on the climate is negligible. Things would get just as bad a few weeks later, and that’s about it. People blame the rich and powerful because when you blame the people running things when things are fucked up. Consider, the option for electrified roads instead of burning hydrocarbons existed 20 years ago. We could have reduced gasoline use by around 90% by now without any great breakthroughs but such choices aren’t up to individual consumers.
  • aqme28 4y ago
    There’s no “lower class” when we’re talking about the people and corporations who own jet aircraft.