• riodoro1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Have you heard about that climate change thing?

      Turns out having billions of people take trips in airplanes wasn’t exactly thought out.

      • cornshark@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Hmm according to Wikipedia, modern planes use about 2.25L of fuel per 100km per seat.

        According to reddit, trains get about 2.5L of fuel per 100km per occupied seat.

        Average SUV gets 15L/100km highway. Assuming high occupancy on a road trip of 4 people, we can say 4L/100km per occupied seat.

        So assuming people will want and deserve to take vacations and go somewhere instead of sitting at home, encouraging them to take more flights seems like the most environmentally friendly option compared to the alternatives?

        • riodoro1@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          5 hours ago

          You are forgetting that 2 or so billion fortunate people aren’t entitled to a vacation in a warm region simply because they have the means. Tourism in its current shape is the polar opposite of sustainable.

          • cornshark@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 hours ago

            Hmm I see, but if they vacation closer to home instead of flying to a warm region, aren’t they more likely to drive? Wouldn’t that cause a worse environmental impact per the math above?