5 ms·
I'd say there should be no harm done to the environment that isn't a net benefit to the public to compensate. If private companies want to recompense the public
by genwin 14y ago
I'd say there should be no harm done to the environment that isn't a net benefit to the public to compensate. If private companies want to recompense the public in full for each 25000 gallons of kerosene burned in the atmosphere (perhaps times thousands of rockets), I'm fine with that. But that's unlikely to happen. It'll just become another public cost instead, to make rich people richer, so I'm against it.
- jlgreco 14y agoThat may be what you wish the world was like, but you must realise that expecting that to actually happen is absurdly unrealistic. Don't expect anyone to take you seriously.
- genwin 14y agoI do realise that expecting the world to be improved for the general public is unrealistic, and the vast majority effectively don't support it. Should I just shut up then?
- jlgreco 14y agoIt doesn't really matter what you do. If you are concerned about looking foolish, then probably yes. Otherwise, have at it.
- wiredfool 14y ago25k Gallons of Kerosene is roughly half the fuel capacity of a 747. (48-65k gallons, depending on which 747). So, that's equivalent to one plane flight from the US to Europe/Asia.