this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023
265 points (92.3% liked)

Fuck Cars

9375 readers
990 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
  • lawful good -- grassy trams
  • neutral good -- bicycles
  • chaotic good -- rail bicycles
  • lawful neutral -- diesel trains
  • true neutral -- walking
  • chaotic neutral -- parkour
  • lawful evil -- airplanes
  • neutral evil -- Las Vegas Loop
  • chaotic evil -- rolling coal
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Techranger@infosec.pub 24 points 1 year ago (6 children)

l'll speak up for airplanes, or at least airliners in particular. I concede the point they mostly burn non-renewable fuels, but they make excellent use of the resources. Rhetorically speaking, one can cross half the planet in half a day, for not much money, in a mode of transport that is the safest on the planet (typically an order of magnitude safer than cars as I recall).

[–] br3d@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

Although don't forget that "for not much money" is partly because air travel is so subsidised. Fuel tends to be largely untaxed, even though fuel taxes on other modes don't really cover the externalities

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 year ago

In terms of fuel per passenger unit of distance, air travel is very efficient, the reason why there are so many emissions is the amount of distance you can travel.

Fuel makes up a significant amount of the aircraft's weight at takeoff on long haul flights.

[–] Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah, that's why I put them in lawful. If we can get them to be more sustainable (maybe green hydrogen fuel), then they'd basically just be super fast and super safe sky buses, whereas they're currently extremely polluting sky buses.

[–] zoe@infosec.pub 7 points 1 year ago

aerial transport is justified for intercontinental transport, but shouldnt be adopted when land travel is possible

[–] someguy7734206@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If I recall correctly, aren't high speed trains the safest? At the very least, I recall that the Shinkansen has never had a single safety incident in its entire history, and as for the TGV, there have been a few derailments and a terrorist attack.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, but there's a lot more airports around.

[–] kilgore_trout@feddit.it 2 points 1 year ago

We should switch to more coscentious standards. Air travel is a commodity. We must avoid it as much as possible.