Come on, about 10% of greenhouse gas emissions come from flying. Amd that’s done almost exclusively by the common folks, not the tiny minority. A kilometre by train causes 99 % less (electric) or about 70 % less (diesel) emissions per kilometre than an airplane does, and is a viable way to travel, but people still fly. Because they prefer being assholes and kil their own children if not doing.so would inconvenience them evem just a little.
Similarly, feeding one person with red mean causes about as much greenhouse gas emissions as feeding 10 vegetarians. No need to go full vegan, but decreasing consumption of meat would make another 10 to 20 %.
And then there are the private cars, something in the ballpark of 5 %.
About a quarter of oyr greenhouse gas emissions are caused.by things that.are completely unnecessary. Yeah, at the moment all of those three would be inconveniences, but only because others don’t do the same. High-speed railways take less resources to operate per passenger and reach about half the speed of an airplane (if you take time spent at airports into account), but the service is unusably.bad because everyone flies. And all the nice ready-made food is meat-based, because the other stuff doesn’t have enough markets and is therefore too expensive, thus staying on the shelves
And also, public transit is not comfortable because it isn’t used by the rich, so there’s no motivation to.keep it at the level it has in Switzerland, where even the richest typically commute by train.
The greenhouse gas emissions.don’t need to be brought to zero fot us to.survive. We common.folk have the capacity to lower them by almost a fifth, which makes a huge difference in pur future
Yeah, the remaining 80-ish % is in the hands of the few, but in this case even our 20 % is relevant enough that your excuse is appalling.
Why do you think we shouldn’t? (Or, alternatively, how do you come to a conclusion that someone thinks we shouldn’t go after those responsible for the majority of emissions)
Your thinking is extremely foreign to me and I would be interested in hearing your reasoning!
What you’re saying is we’re also to blame because we participate, as a society, in 10% of global emissions by flying. What about those same few who fly 2 people at a time in a private jet instead of 200+ in an airliner? People like that Starbucks CEO who would commute from LA to Seattle in a corporate jet, or any other rich fucker who can’t be seen near the poors and has to put out thousands on times the amount of emissions as the average person.
Sure, I’ll take my 0.000000001% of the blame, and Brian Niccol can take his personal 0.1%.
You’re right, it’s actually the poors fault! Lol /s what a stupid fucking take. Thanks for adding the same thing to the conversation that oil lobbyists were saying in the 70s
The oil lobbyists have been saying since the 70’s that they are responsible to the biggest share of greenhouse gas emissions?! Please show me even one place where they’ve made that claim.
Come on, about 10% of greenhouse gas emissions come from flying. Amd that’s done almost exclusively by the common folks, not the tiny minority. A kilometre by train causes 99 % less (electric) or about 70 % less (diesel) emissions per kilometre than an airplane does, and is a viable way to travel, but people still fly. Because they prefer being assholes and kil their own children if not doing.so would inconvenience them evem just a little.
The problem will always be price. So travelling to another country? I’m in the UK so it’s a bit limiting. But if I want to go to Paris. I picked a week a month away from now. So it should be too expensive, or too cheap. By eurostar the cheapest option is £95, by plane £74.
But the same is true of car vs train in the UK and it’s frankly at ridiculous levels. If I want to go into London from where I live (which is in a home county) it will cost £40 for a return on the same day. However if I drive, even in an older car that is subject to ULEZ. Then the cost is:
£12.50 ULEZ
£15 congestion charge (although really, there’s plenty of places you can park outside the congestion zone but very central to pick up the tube to avoid this)
£5 worth of fuel.
Parking, depends. At the weekend there are many places you can reliably park for free.
It’s always cheaper than the train. But, notably if you park outside of the congestion charge zone, it’s significantly cheaper. If you’re two people travelling or in a ULEZ compliant vehicle it’s entirely a no-brainer. Here’s an interesting point. People are happy to park inside the ULEZ but outside the congestion charge zone and take the tube. Do you know why? It’s because coincidentally the last train stations outside the congestion charge zone are also the same station the fare is suddenly 2x the fare from the first station inside. Travelling within London on the tube, train and bus is affordable and mostly convenient. Getting in from outside, even a mile outside is not.
They need to fix this. The average person votes with their wallet, with convenience coming second. Train travel needs to be affordable and convenient. If it’s cheaper and convenient to use, people will use it and leave their cars at home.
But look, CO2 per mile is way more in a private plane. We really need to be putting MUCH more into stopping that. Just because the total from the normal folk is less than the rich boys (and girls), doesn’t mean the onus is on the rest of us. Per person they are doing a lot more to destroy the planet than the hoi polloi.
“A handful of people”?!
Come on, about 10% of greenhouse gas emissions come from flying. Amd that’s done almost exclusively by the common folks, not the tiny minority. A kilometre by train causes 99 % less (electric) or about 70 % less (diesel) emissions per kilometre than an airplane does, and is a viable way to travel, but people still fly. Because they prefer being assholes and kil their own children if not doing.so would inconvenience them evem just a little.
Similarly, feeding one person with red mean causes about as much greenhouse gas emissions as feeding 10 vegetarians. No need to go full vegan, but decreasing consumption of meat would make another 10 to 20 %. And then there are the private cars, something in the ballpark of 5 %.
About a quarter of oyr greenhouse gas emissions are caused.by things that.are completely unnecessary. Yeah, at the moment all of those three would be inconveniences, but only because others don’t do the same. High-speed railways take less resources to operate per passenger and reach about half the speed of an airplane (if you take time spent at airports into account), but the service is unusably.bad because everyone flies. And all the nice ready-made food is meat-based, because the other stuff doesn’t have enough markets and is therefore too expensive, thus staying on the shelves And also, public transit is not comfortable because it isn’t used by the rich, so there’s no motivation to.keep it at the level it has in Switzerland, where even the richest typically commute by train.
The greenhouse gas emissions.don’t need to be brought to zero fot us to.survive. We common.folk have the capacity to lower them by almost a fifth, which makes a huge difference in pur future Yeah, the remaining 80-ish % is in the hands of the few, but in this case even our 20 % is relevant enough that your excuse is appalling.
So because we can account for 20% of emissions ourselves we shouldn’t bother going after those responsible for the other 80%?
Why do you think we shouldn’t? (Or, alternatively, how do you come to a conclusion that someone thinks we shouldn’t go after those responsible for the majority of emissions)
Your thinking is extremely foreign to me and I would be interested in hearing your reasoning!
What you’re saying is we’re also to blame because we participate, as a society, in 10% of global emissions by flying. What about those same few who fly 2 people at a time in a private jet instead of 200+ in an airliner? People like that Starbucks CEO who would commute from LA to Seattle in a corporate jet, or any other rich fucker who can’t be seen near the poors and has to put out thousands on times the amount of emissions as the average person.
Sure, I’ll take my 0.000000001% of the blame, and Brian Niccol can take his personal 0.1%.
You’re right, it’s actually the poors fault! Lol /s what a stupid fucking take. Thanks for adding the same thing to the conversation that oil lobbyists were saying in the 70s
The oil lobbyists have been saying since the 70’s that they are responsible to the biggest share of greenhouse gas emissions?! Please show me even one place where they’ve made that claim.
The problem will always be price. So travelling to another country? I’m in the UK so it’s a bit limiting. But if I want to go to Paris. I picked a week a month away from now. So it should be too expensive, or too cheap. By eurostar the cheapest option is £95, by plane £74.
But the same is true of car vs train in the UK and it’s frankly at ridiculous levels. If I want to go into London from where I live (which is in a home county) it will cost £40 for a return on the same day. However if I drive, even in an older car that is subject to ULEZ. Then the cost is:
£12.50 ULEZ £15 congestion charge (although really, there’s plenty of places you can park outside the congestion zone but very central to pick up the tube to avoid this) £5 worth of fuel. Parking, depends. At the weekend there are many places you can reliably park for free.
It’s always cheaper than the train. But, notably if you park outside of the congestion charge zone, it’s significantly cheaper. If you’re two people travelling or in a ULEZ compliant vehicle it’s entirely a no-brainer. Here’s an interesting point. People are happy to park inside the ULEZ but outside the congestion charge zone and take the tube. Do you know why? It’s because coincidentally the last train stations outside the congestion charge zone are also the same station the fare is suddenly 2x the fare from the first station inside. Travelling within London on the tube, train and bus is affordable and mostly convenient. Getting in from outside, even a mile outside is not.
They need to fix this. The average person votes with their wallet, with convenience coming second. Train travel needs to be affordable and convenient. If it’s cheaper and convenient to use, people will use it and leave their cars at home.
But look, CO2 per mile is way more in a private plane. We really need to be putting MUCH more into stopping that. Just because the total from the normal folk is less than the rich boys (and girls), doesn’t mean the onus is on the rest of us. Per person they are doing a lot more to destroy the planet than the hoi polloi.
Where the hell did you get that absurd number from?