7 ms·
You're claiming the argument is wrong, then supporting it again. The person(s) who go over or under the threshold are the ones that make a difference. If thres
by superqwert 7y ago
You're claiming the argument is wrong, then supporting it again.
The person(s) who go over or under the threshold are the ones that make a difference. If thresholds aren't breached by the amount of people changing route, then there is not a very significant difference.
As you indeed state:
"but you can still very much say the climate footprint of each passenger is (total plane print/passengers)"
You can indeed say as much, but "this is oversimplified".
Just to be clear - I am not arguing that we should not pick routes responsibly, with the environment in mind. I am merely trying to ensure we are clearer about what impacts we are actually making and that we are considering all the impacts and not just doing a simple calculation that actually misses out the many complexities of transport.
- blackbrokkoli 7y agoSo, you're arguing that the straw that broke the camels back is the only straw that matters at all?
- superqwert 7y agoNo, I'm arguing that the calculations for emission per person are simplistic.
- superqwert 7y agoIn transport, we have learnt over the past century to not use aggregate models, as they do not provide the same detail and results as disaggregate models[p.18 Modelling Transport 4th Edition Ortuzar & Willumsen]. We should not lower our standards when discussing emissions and pollution. This article above is a very worrying case - where the reader is encouraged to shame people for flying, without showing necessary statistics as to whether flying is indeed much worse than other transportation methods.