[b112]

Bikes are even better! Yet bikes (with all the environmental cost of the metal mining, forging, production, shipping, plus replacement tires, brakes, and all the cost of air pressurized for the tires), are far worse than walking.

So we should all walk, yes?

But, I mean, the cost of shoes on the environment. They wear out quite fast, I walk 10 to 15km a day, and my shoes wear out every 3 to 4 months, so it makes more sense to go barefoot.

Yet again, the cost of all that food... food production is bad for the environment! Probably, I should not walk, or really go anywhere, and just sit still.

Right? Right?!

Here is the answer.

Don't suggest fewer plane trips. It will never happen, unless you purposefully hurt, and cause tyranny against others to enable your dream.

Instead, make a better plane. Make a better blimp.

Make people want your dream, instead of fighting your dream.

Make them love your solution, not your restrictions.

This is the way.

[Schroedingersat]

Nice argument. Except it's incredibly wrong.

Once recommended exercise thresholds are met, a durable bicycle is better than walking. Faired LEVs and light ebikes are better than bicycles. And full capacity mid speed (<200km/h) trains are better still. High speed rail is somewhere between walking and bicycles.

Maximise flourishing within a resource and energy budget. And if you invent a better plane or a lower impact energy source, add it to the menu. Do not blow the budget by an order of magnitude (or three) and then demand that technology fix the problem after the fact.

[dontlaugh]

Trains are better than planes already. High speed trains are even exciting.

Ultimately, restrictions are necessary too. The frivolous per capita energy consumption in North America and Western Europe needs to be reduced.

[snapcaster]

Let me guess, you're the one that decides "frivolous"? I couldn't disagree more. Everyone needs way more energy. Most poverty is energy poverty and trying to reduce demand seems like a fool's errand. Electricity rules, stop pretending like it doesn't. We can figure out how to make more of it without destroying everything

[dontlaugh]

That sort of thing needs to be democratically decided. Currently it isn’t, most countries have a few rich people dominating media and politics.

Most poverty isn’t energy poverty at all, it’s a lack of control over the means of production in general. Energy is merely one aspect.

Some energy usage is clearly frivolous, like several ton cars with single occupants or vastly oversized armies. Alternatives that achieve the same goals with vastly lower energy usage already exist and in some places are even widespread. Life can be different without being worse.

[snapcaster]

What you're describing is a dramatic reduction in human freedom. Right now I have the freedom to use as much energy as I can afford and people like you don't get any say in how I use it. Why not focus on generating more energy efficiently than imposing controls on other people? This seems like more about having control over other people than an actual concern for the environment or energy usage.

Would you vote to ban video games?

[dontlaugh]

When lower energy alternatives are better and widespread, people use them. Why should we not strive for efficiency as a society?

I at no point argued for banning something, just offering better alternatives.

[snapcaster]

What do you think "democratic decisions" will do? You already hinted at banning certain types of vehicles you don't like. I'm wondering what other things other people enjoy you would like to ban?

[sidewndr46]

You do realize putting democracy in front of something doesn't make it OK or even a good idea right?