Not minivan-driving boogeymans.īut good effort on posting that link. And so on.Ĭentral planning creates that kind of horrible infrastructure. > Likewise, had they not been so tired, and busy, and stressed, citizens making up the equivalent of three major metropolitan areas told reporters that they probably wouldn't have driven their minivans down to the corner store.Īmerica is designed for ridiculous urban/suburban sprawl, hideous parking lot squarage, putting commercial shops in can-only-be-driven-to outskirts of populated areas, making anti-pedestrian “Jay Walking” laws (pushed by automanufacturers), decimating poor communities by demolishing them in order to put highways through them so that commuters can still get stuck in rush hour traffic, having an embarassing public transportation system where even the train connection in the giant metropolis Philadelphia-New Your et al hasn’t improved in decades. That the “the problem” being Joe Beergut throwing a bottle in the trash instead of producing metric tonnes of it every day in the first place is being (was being) portrayed as “parody” is an impressive feat that one can credit to that campaign. Plastic recycling was a propaganda campaign by the plastic industry in order to fool the world into thinking that using plastics in the first place was sustainable. The truth is, profits (force people to pay for seats with more legroom, like as doors and such). How many flights have you been on, fully seated? Be honest! And care to assign cost to the poor, if people don't want that.Īnd again, I have flown plenty, and have only once seen all seats occupied. That's less convenient, but no, you'd prefer to make my knees hurt. 65% full, then the flight by law is cancelled, if competitors have a closely timed route, but, also by law, a competitor must take those passegers and kick a commission to the originating airline. Pass a law, that airlines must share flights if not full enough. Hell, here's an idea which would save, in one month, more than those extra few seats in a decade (which are only used on full flights. You equate "caring about the environment" with "making change no matter how small, everywhere, in every thing, without focusing on big issues first".Īn example, getting the US, for example, to reduce hot water usage even mildly, would do more for the environment than decades worth of "make people's knees hurt", "adding two seats to rarely full planes" mentality. I care about the environment, yet you're making my point here. Not when they're buying up airline after airline. And no, this problem isn't rare in my country.īefore the pandemic, Air Canada was highly profitable, with a 50$ CDN share price, and making deals to buy other airlines.ĭon't confuse asset write down, and other chicanery, for loss. Of course, you'll get little traction making people take lukewarm showers, so instead, you want me to have aching knees for a week after an airflight. And will be far less onerous than cramped airline seating.ĮG, drop all indoor temps, by law, to 60F in winter, and just wear a sweater. Such as, limiting hot water usage, temperatures in homes, the size of homes, the size of cars, bus seating, the ability to use anything but your feet, for short (1km) trip distances, and on and on and on.Īll of these will do far more, immensely more for the environment. If you wish to push this narrative, the narrative of "good! cramped is good cause environment", then I suggest you start with more effective places. Assertions otherwise are 100% wrong.Īirflight does not need to be cramped. Thus, again, hand wavy stuff re:environment, is not the cause. Greater profits, zero real savings for consumers, and cramped seats. Increasing seat density does just that so suck it up.Īirlines in my country (Canada), exhibit the behaviour I described. Depending on the time both were deemed healthy to consume by research via multitudes of biased research and and a lack of unbiased studies.īut with a little anecdotal common sense it's easy to see that breathing burnt plants into your lungs is likely just bad overall. Third, even an "honest" study can be wildly off depending on the data gathered and most of the time these studies only find correlative associations rather then causative (most people don't even know how to conduct a causative experiment).Ī good example of this is smoking Cannabis and Tobacco. There's huge incentive to doctor these things and with the replication crisis this "doctoring" has been shown to be common place. Second, studies are not to be trusted either. You can get some sort of answer much faster and at a hugely lower cost then a "study". Outright dismissing an anecdote as completely baseless and invalid is highly, highly unwise and a sign that the person is not logical.įirst off, anecdotes have extreme speed. Anecdotes have a degree of unreliability and a degree of reliability.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |