3 ms·
If the article solely made a case for banning unnecessary boat traffic then I’d be all for it, but they muddle their point by including irrelevant parts such as
by JCharante 3y ago
If the article solely made a case for banning unnecessary boat traffic then I’d be all for it, but they muddle their point by including irrelevant parts such as
> Last year, for instance, a company named White Desert opened its latest luxury camp in Antarctica. Its sleeping domes, roughly 60 miles from the coast, are perched near an emperor-penguin colony and can be reached only by private jet. Guests, who pay at least $65,000 a stay, are encouraged to explore the continent by plane, Ski-Doos, and Arctic truck before enjoying a gourmet meal whose ingredients are flown in from South Africa.
If this camp requires coming by plane, isn’t this good since it avoids boat trips? The previous paragraph talked about harming the ecosystem but it doesn’t make any claim or offer evidence that these camps and their guests are littering the ecosystem.
Or is the point still “planes bad”? If so, then my criticism from my parent comment still applies.
- actuallyalys 3y agoI agree it could have more evidence, but it seems very likely that this trip is far more carbon intensive than a normal plane trip since all the food and probably a number of other supplies and amenities have to be flown in. That being said, I think the overall lifestyle of people who pay $65,000 to visit Antarctica is a bigger problem than trips to Antarctica. "just one hundredth of the world population (77 million individuals) emits about 50% more than the entire bottom half of the population (3.8 billion individuals)." [0] [0] https://wir2022.wid.world/chapter-6/#tab_61b433da73d0e https://wir2022.wid.world/chapter-6/#tab_61b433da73d0e
- JCharante 3y agoIt’s a bigger problem with a bigger opportunity. We just need policies that impact 77 million people instead of policies that impact 3.8 billion people .