Automobiles

[Deleted User 863]

Coming from the guy who just took an airplane to Italy. Lulz.

Holy fuck, you say some of the stupidest shit

Airplanes are bad for the environment.

Fact.

[Cascadia]

Coming from the guy who just took an airplane to Italy. Lulz.

Holy fuck, you say some of the stupidest shit

He’s not smart enough to keep up.

[Deleted User 863]

I am keeping up.

You don't think people "need" to drive to work alone.

And I don't think people "need" to fly to Italy for enjoyment.

[ousdahl]

we don’t “need” this in the automobiles thread.

You guys should either take it to QT or, in the spirit of the thread, settle it with a race, fast and furious style.

Plano’s jeep vs illy’s geo metro

[Deleted User 863]

We should create a "non essential travel is bad for the environment" thread since driving to work alone is such a big deal. Airplanes. Cars. All of it. Assuming this is really about doing what is best for the environment.

I will gladly give up my cars. I can work from home, walk to my parents/in laws, and ride a bike to the golf course. But finger wagging about people driving to work after bragging about all the worldwide travel you do each year/have done over the years (italy, vegas, etc) is the definition of hypocrisy.

[pdub]

You both are wrong and right.
Planes are a form of public transport so a good number of people are traveling once a great distance.
They do waste a ton of fuel. Cascadias round trip will cost around 2,500 gallons of fuel which could fuel an individual commute for a long time.

But because of the amount of people driving everyday and the fact planes hold hundreds of people during the flight, Automobiles contribute 3-4 times more times to annual pollution than airplanes.

[Deleted User 863]

Of course.

It just makes me laugh how people decide what is acceptable damage to the environment based solely on what they enjoy.

He doesn't care about driving to work alone. He can use public transport or carpool and still be happy. Others may like driving to/from work alone to get some peace and quiet/decompress. He thinks that's bad for the environment.

Others may have no desire to fly all around the world. They'd rather relax at home. They'd be willing to give up non essential airline travel to help the environment.

It's always easier to sacrifice what others enjoy for the betterment of the environment than it is to sacrifice what you enjoy.

[Deleted User 863]

Automobiles contribute 3-4 times more times to annual pollution than airplanes.

Absolutely.

Transport makes up about 14% of total air pollution.

Cars and Airplanes are both significant sources. It's reasonable to say non essential travel by either is unnecessary. I am not saying that's how I feel, but it's reasonable for someone to feel that way if their top priority is doing what is best for the environment.

[Cascadia]

You both are wrong and right.
Planes are a form of public transport so a good number of people are traveling once a great distance.
They do waste a ton of fuel. Cascadias round trip will cost around 2,500 gallons of fuel which could fuel an individual commute for a long time.

But because of the amount of people driving everyday and the fact planes hold hundreds of people during the flight, Automobiles contribute 3-4 times more times to annual pollution than airplanes.

Illy’s too dumb to understand.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

You both are wrong and right.
Planes are a form of public transport so a good number of people are traveling once a great distance.
They do waste a ton of fuel. Cascadias round trip will cost around 2,500 gallons of fuel which could fuel an individual commute for a long time.

But because of the amount of people driving everyday and the fact planes hold hundreds of people during the flight, Automobiles contribute 3-4 times more times to annual pollution than airplanes.

How many planes are used for commercial travel and how many are used as cargo and "private" flights?
I have no idea where you got your 2,500 gallons of fuel claim but it seems low to me.

[Deleted User 863]

You both are wrong and right.
Planes are a form of public transport so a good number of people are traveling once a great distance.
They do waste a ton of fuel. Cascadias round trip will cost around 2,500 gallons of fuel which could fuel an individual commute for a long time.

But because of the amount of people driving everyday and the fact planes hold hundreds of people during the flight, Automobiles contribute 3-4 times more times to annual pollution than airplanes.

Illy’s too dumb to understand.

Airplane travel is bad for the environment.

Fact.

[Deleted User 863]

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2020 ... hen-flying

Only 3% of the world travels by airplane regularly.

Around 2.4% of global CO2 emissions come from aviation. Together with other gases and the water vapour trails produced by aircraft, the industry is responsible for around 5% of global warming.


Going to have to make some sacrifices if you're going to finger wag for regular folks driving to work Cascadia.

[pdub]

Gutter you are right.
I read it as 5 miles per gallon.
It’s 5 gallons per mile.

So multiply 2,500 by 5.
12500 gallons.

If your commute was 20 miles a day ( 10 each way ) for 260 days a year at 23 mpg you could fuel that for your entire career from the fuel used in those flights to and from Italy.

[TDub]

Cascadia too dumb to understand

[zsn]

Actually McDonalds, Burger King and other cattle based foods are a greater threat to the environment and sustainability than all forms of travel put together (think also about water and other resources used)

[pdub]

It’s too bad burgers are so good though.

[TDub]

this is the automobile thread.

[pdub]

True.

[Cascadia]

this is the automobile thread.

Then why are we talking about airplanes?

[Cascadia]

Actually McDonalds, Burger King and other cattle based foods are a greater threat to the environment and sustainability than all forms of travel put together (think also about water and other resources used)

Illy’s too du……..

Ah, you get it.