4 ms·
So, less greenhouse gases?
by throwawaymaths 2y ago
So, less greenhouse gases?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- mathw 2y agoPeople might choose to fly somewhere else instead though, so it doesn't necessarily reduce the overall amount of carbon emissions from air travel. Especially if you see Europeans deciding to go somewhere else in the Americas instead, which I've heard some of my friends considering. Although if Europeans choose to travel within Europe instead then yes we'd see a reduction as the distances are rather shorter (and with any luck some of them would go by rail)
- johanvts 2y agoTrump thought of that so now he is also singlehandedly starting a global depression to ensure nobody will be traveling at all. Truly he has done more for the climate than Gretha.
- internet_points 2y agoOTOH oil prices are down (due to less demand while incf OPEC production), so people will be burning oil on other things
- brianmcc 2y agoOr more, if Canadians travel to Europe instead of the US
- arccy 2y agountil the airlines reduce flights, the planes still fly, just emptier
- throwawaymaths 2y agoWhat's the frequency by which airlines rebalance their flight schedule (including e.g. code sharing)
- wk_end 2y agoTechnically this still reduces emissions, since they'll burn less fuel carrying a lighter weight. Pretty sure it's negligible, though.
- ABS 2y agoif you need to eat and decide not to go to your usual restaurant for whatever reason... do you stop eating altogether?
- throwawaymaths 2y agoNo but if your usual is maguro, you're definitely cutting back on your greenhouse footprint.
- ABS 2y agoexcept there are plenty of other restaurants serving maguro
- peeters 2y agoOn the point of air travel specifically, Canadians are being advised to use airports over land borders because if you are denied entry at U.S. customs at a Canadian airport, they cannot detain you as you are on Canadian soil. So for Canadians still travelling to the U.S. it might actually increase their carbon footprint.