4 ms·

So if the UK banned all airplanes - what changes for the world? Oh, that's right. Still nothing. You are hyper-focused on a meaningless gesture that you were

by Alupis 2y ago

So if the UK banned all airplanes - what changes for the world? Oh, that's right. Still nothing. You are hyper-focused on a meaningless gesture that you were told to believe by people who continue to fly private jets around the world - like the academics this very thread is about. Seriously... let that sink in for a few moments. You should suffer, while they enjoy the lavishes of life. Kind of like a tv megachurch evangelist. If you want to be principled and refuse to ever fly again - fine. It doesn't harm anyone but yourself. The world won't even thank you for this meaningless gesture and countless wasted hours. Just don't stand on a busy street corner shouting "repent" into your megaphone.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Dylan16807 2y ago
I'm pretty sure the UK banning all airplanes would make a measurable difference. Especially since other countries would be reducing air travel along with them if this scenario is supposed to be at least semi-plausible.
- Alupis 2y ago
  It would not. Those people would still travel - just by far less efficient means.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    You think long distance travel demand is completely inelastic? It's not. Also what's "far less efficient means", please be specific. Most of these people are not going to take solo car trips super long distances.
    - Alupis 2y ago
      Unless the UK is going to totally isolate themselves from the entire world - people and goods will still travel in and out. Only by vastly less efficient means. The UK is not isolated, and will never be. In this implausible scenario, people fly into France, drive to a ferry, cross the channel by boat, drive to the train station, etc. Increased traffic, idling, etc all adds up. People still have business that needs to be done and they will do it. Evidenced by this hypocritical academics.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        Boats and trucks are not "vastly less efficient" than planes. And when travel is harder, people travel less.
        Alupis 2y ago
        Yes they are. Look at these fuel economy numbers (broken down by number of butts in seats)[1]. 60-100+ mpg equivalent per seat. What car or truck is getting 80+mpg while hauling a 40,000lbs payload, for example? Not to mention how wildly efficient modern turbofan combustion is. This fiction that air travel is so awful is really counter productive. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        By trucks I meant trucks of goods. And that line didn't mention cars.
  - quantified 2y ago
    Lots of holiday travel would disappear, because the holiday would be swallowed by inconvenience.
    - eesmith 2y ago
      It wouldn't disappear. Lots of Brits went to Brighton long before cheap flights to Bali. If you have 12 hours to travel, then you have 12 hours to travel, no matter the method.
- mike_hearn 2y ago
  That experiment was run during lockdown for the whole world and it made no observable difference to co2 levels.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissions/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissi... I see a pretty significant dip on this chart, at least.
    - mike_hearn 2y ago
      I said levels. You're not looking at data on levels (measured empirically using simple physics), but emissions, which is a smorgasbord of combined government data sources that aren't very likely to be complete. If you check levels, you'll see no impact. Therefore we must conclude that either: 1. Emissions do not affect measured levels (carbon cycles are complex so this is possible). 2. Emissions data is wrong. 3. The tiny reduction in emissions was just too small to actually show up in measurements.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        The noise levels on direct measurements are pretty high. You're right that it's not big enough to show up on a year to year basis, but it will likely make a difference up on a longer term analysis, which can see more impact and has less variance. In that case it depends on whether "observable" is supposed to include near-future measurements or not.
quantified 2y ago
You're right that no one (essentially) will thank you for this. Everyone is too caught up in their own worlds. So eat the last tuna, hunt the last buffalo, shred your polyester clothes into the wind via your clother dryer, no one cares enough. This is where religion might have played a role in saying "God cares" but gods sort of stopped talking over a thousand years ago.
Cheer2171 2y ago
> You are hyper-focused on a meaningless gesture You're the one who seems hyperfocused on this. You come off like an evangelical atheist. > Just don't stand on a busy street corner shouting "repent" into your megaphone. Sir, this is an article about a survey.

by Alupis 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Dylan16807 2y ago

I'm pretty sure the UK banning all airplanes would make a measurable difference. Especially since other countries would be reducing air travel along with them if this scenario is supposed to be at least semi-plausible.

Alupis 2y ago
It would not. Those people would still travel - just by far less efficient means.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  You think long distance travel demand is completely inelastic? It's not. Also what's "far less efficient means", please be specific. Most of these people are not going to take solo car trips super long distances.
  - Alupis 2y ago
    Unless the UK is going to totally isolate themselves from the entire world - people and goods will still travel in and out. Only by vastly less efficient means. The UK is not isolated, and will never be. In this implausible scenario, people fly into France, drive to a ferry, cross the channel by boat, drive to the train station, etc. Increased traffic, idling, etc all adds up. People still have business that needs to be done and they will do it. Evidenced by this hypocritical academics.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      Boats and trucks are not "vastly less efficient" than planes. And when travel is harder, people travel less.
      - Alupis 2y ago
        Yes they are. Look at these fuel economy numbers (broken down by number of butts in seats)[1]. 60-100+ mpg equivalent per seat. What car or truck is getting 80+mpg while hauling a 40,000lbs payload, for example? Not to mention how wildly efficient modern turbofan combustion is. This fiction that air travel is so awful is really counter productive. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        By trucks I meant trucks of goods. And that line didn't mention cars.
- quantified 2y ago
  Lots of holiday travel would disappear, because the holiday would be swallowed by inconvenience.
  - eesmith 2y ago
    It wouldn't disappear. Lots of Brits went to Brighton long before cheap flights to Bali. If you have 12 hours to travel, then you have 12 hours to travel, no matter the method.
mike_hearn 2y ago
That experiment was run during lockdown for the whole world and it made no observable difference to co2 levels.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissions/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissi... I see a pretty significant dip on this chart, at least.
  - mike_hearn 2y ago
    I said levels. You're not looking at data on levels (measured empirically using simple physics), but emissions, which is a smorgasbord of combined government data sources that aren't very likely to be complete. If you check levels, you'll see no impact. Therefore we must conclude that either: 1. Emissions do not affect measured levels (carbon cycles are complex so this is possible). 2. Emissions data is wrong. 3. The tiny reduction in emissions was just too small to actually show up in measurements.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      The noise levels on direct measurements are pretty high. You're right that it's not big enough to show up on a year to year basis, but it will likely make a difference up on a longer term analysis, which can see more impact and has less variance. In that case it depends on whether "observable" is supposed to include near-future measurements or not.

quantified 2y ago

You're right that no one (essentially) will thank you for this. Everyone is too caught up in their own worlds. So eat the last tuna, hunt the last buffalo, shred your polyester clothes into the wind via your clother dryer, no one cares enough. This is where religion might have played a role in saying "God cares" but gods sort of stopped talking over a thousand years ago.

Cheer2171 2y ago

> You are hyper-focused on a meaningless gesture You're the one who seems hyperfocused on this. You come off like an evangelical atheist. > Just don't stand on a busy street corner shouting "repent" into your megaphone. Sir, this is an article about a survey.