[gambiting]

I've said this before, but I'll say it again - I'm 99% certain that my local supermarket stocking fresh cherries from Chille every day(I'm in UK) damages the environment more than someone driving a truck in africa. It almost makes me angry that someone mentions that this sort of adventure shouldn't be done because of environmental reasons.

[barking]

The odd person driving a truck around africa won't cause environmental damage. Killing a few elephants won't endanger the species. Are you in favour of allowing people to shoot elephants?

[comboy]

Apart from the fact that sips likely generate more pollution than cars [1], it's seems very plausible that he would generate more of it being stuck in a traffic jam while getting to work than he did during these holidays.

He also didn't probably use as much electricity as you do at the moment which is likely generated mostly in non environmentally friendly way. Ignoring the fact that many parts of your equipment came on ships from China. From factories which generate a lot of pollution.

Also, if you want to be perfect better-world-optimizer, it is really hard. Even if the earth would get ever slightly more polluted by this single car, the impact of thousands of people reading the story could still be positive. It makes them think about nature, probably slightly increases their well being, and so on.

1. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-1...

[gambiting]

Why, because my attitude towards shooting elephants has anything to do with my attitude towards driving a truck in africa?

I'm just trying to point out that we're doing more damage demanding brand new phones every year, demanding that every shop around has fresh produce from every corner of the world etc etc etc. Him driving around africa has probably lower impact than an average tourist flying somewhere for holiday.