That (sort of number) is correct as far as it goes. You get to choose to use miles per gallon instead of gallons per minute however . Not that thatâs wrong to do so.
I donât have the back-of-the-envelope calc I did once upon a time, but I did annoy my mum by showing that the energy savings (or carbon footprint) earned by changing all the lightbulbs in the house to âecoâ bulbs for the rest of our lifetime was negated by taking a single 3-hour flight.
And that wasnât even factoring the manufacturing and disposal costs of same, as I couldnât find good stats on those.
[asbestos class=âjoking not-jokingâ]
If anyone wanted to do our grandkids a favour, they should just arbitrarily execute anyone their magic box selects for secondary screening. Less people, especially the large-carbon-footprint-types, is the only thing that can save the planet.
[/asbestos]
I suppose the same assumption could be used to argue for better funded public transport - assuming that fatalities on public transport are less common. By failing to make public transport more accessible, various jurisdictions are forcing people to drive.
Well, this is the issue, itâs a public policy argument. These scanners are bad, funding public transit it good. But the government doesnât make decisions based on the best available science, they make them based on numerous factors. I think taking the government to court because they policy is bad just doesnât work. Either vote for someone different next time or start a revolution.
This is an issue of opportunity cost. If the plane wasnât there or cost a lot more, fewer people would fly. The question is whether the reduction in flying is negated by the increase in car journeys.
If the flying was replaced by bus journeys there might be a net fuel benefit - a bus can easily achieve 400 passenger miles/gallon. But thatâs because a bus is slow compared to a plane.
Youâd have fewer passengers, because traveling by bus SUCKS OH SO MUCH, but whether that would result in fewer trips or only fewer passengers per trip would need to be seen.
Iâll stay home thanks ver much. I flew for the first time since having kids just a month ago, 5 hours to Edmonton⌠both the flight and destination hardened my resolve nicely. Unless entirely necessary I will not fly again for many years. I made it 6 years or so, time to try for 12, then 24, and then Iâll be ded. problem solved.
One thing is certain, I would Never have gone if it meant 2 days on a bus to Edmonton
My guess is that in most American cities where the population is dense enough that public transport can get you there as fast as driving, public transport is already there.
Well youâre half right. I donât care about the âomg theyâll see my bitsâ aspect of it. Iâve been tempted to wear a unitard and no underwear under my dress and just whip the dress off to get through security.
Itâs the fact that I have to stand there like Iâm surrendering or being arrested that bothers me. But like 99.9999% of people, I just need to catch my damn plane so that I donât have to pay money to book a new flight when I miss it.
Are you really suggesting that because the President of the U.S. requires extreme security measures and thus flies in a special plane, he should be killed for the long term safety of the environment? Not cool, man.
Nope. Only a few cities in the U.S. have sufficient public transportation to be useful for more than a small percentage of the population, because almost all have been built up since the invention of the car, and were in fact built/expanded/renovated based on car usage.
You have to agree that the measures are really extreme. Obama was last week in Hanover. The German police informed the residents on the route between the hotel and venue that they should not look out of the windows âto avoid irritation of the security personnel and a search of the homeâ. Home of the free, my ass.
Although I will point out that the death threats against this particular president have been off-the-charts insane, so I think security has become extremely sensitive.
It is slightly unfair to poor people but one of the many benefits of <$20 a year GlobalEntry/TSA pre is that you donât have to use the machines at all. If you travel by air at all it is totally worth it⌠Although I understand how some may be conscientious objectors and decide to forgo the easy path.
Not sure about the direction of your comment. Do you mean that itâs SOP for German security forces to search homes because someone looks out of the window?
Add in the fact that in most suburban places zoning precludes building the kind of density that naturally happens around effective public transport hubs.
Well 1) Germany isnât known as the âland of the freeâ. That is from the American National Anthem.
I donât know what SOP is today, I assume it is not, but given the history with the Gestapo and Stasi, then yeah, it isnât too hard to see that happening again.
Once a nazi, always a nazi, I see. Sippenhaft is another thing we excel in!
Youâll probably not believe me, but the aforementioned âirritated security personnelâ was the secret service, not the German police. Only two heads of state cause such a panic mode: The pope and US presidents.
. Not that thatâs wrong to do so. 
