(no title)
RRL | 3 years ago
Exactly. I have quite a few friends who regularly fly/travel to these scenic ocean/river systems, but will absolve themselves of concern because they're using some 'reef safe' sunscreen when they dip in to the water. Greenhouse gas emissions are always someone else's fault. Industry, diesel trucks, etc etc.
They're also the same folks that attack Airbnb and gentrification at home, but are the first to jump on to the Airbnb moneyed expat lifestyle when traveling.
At this point, it's not even worth the time to debate.
ch4s3|3 years ago
RRL|3 years ago
matthewmcg|3 years ago
gusgus01|3 years ago
upsidesinclude|3 years ago
There are a thousand examples of companies evaporating for exactly that reason.
'Systemic change' doesn't mean anything in reality. You can't destroy a national economic model and just replace it any more than you can make people spend money where they aren't going. Economies rely on travel and so travel has subsidy.
During 2020 no one flew anywhere and the airlines were smashed with losses. That's not sustainable for any real length of time. If individuals cared to stop flying, they would and airlines would be bankrupt in 2-3 years. No amount of subsidy can maintain those organizations without broad customer support. The soviet infrastructure decline of the 80s is a perfect example of that process in action
jstanley|3 years ago
Are you sure they're the same people?
It is a classic mistake to lump everyone you've ever disagreed with into a single group and then lampoon the group for its contradictions.
PuppyTailWags|3 years ago
RRL|3 years ago
virtue3|3 years ago
Especially since greenhosue gas emissions for the airline industry is about 3% of all greenhouse gas emissions.
hackernewds|3 years ago
pvaldes|3 years ago
So... Why is a problem that a few less anemones don't die?. Conservation is not like zapping a magic wand and all is good again.
Even little steps helps and every little problem solved is one less problem that we have.
hackernewds|3 years ago