[kyro]

It'd also be just as nice for you to apply your commenting skills strictly to pen and paper instead of using your monitor, computer, and internet to waste energy by the second. But even then, you'll be destroying the forests if you used pen and paper. Seems like any option you take will ultimately result in some sort of pollution/destruction of the environment. It's best that you just stand still and breathe - ah nope, never mind - that's CO2 production.

Point is, he's not actively destroying the ozone layer and almost everything we do, from daily tasks to journeys like these, comes at some cost.

[mcantelon]

I see. Because everyday activities have some effect on the ozone layer, a month of constant, pointless, unneccessary flying - an activity that is widely known to have a large impact on the ozone layer - is okay. Got it.

[ekanes]

You're right to point out that this activity has a reasonably high environmental cost, but the value of this idea is in its RELATIVE merits. Will they do something interesting/worthy/influential/etc enough to merit the cost.

As a practical example of this trade-off, imagine the cost of creating a documentary film. The environment might be hurt by driving all over, or flying a film crew around. But was it worth it? Depends on the film.

Let them make their "film" before you're a critic. :)

[mcantelon]

That's a valid comparison and an interesting point. If the premise of their "film" was about something interesting or valuable I might lean towards thinking that the cost could be worth it. However the only premise I can see is a showcasing of web 2.0 documentation as a medium.

I don't see why a month of constant, needless flying is needed to for this premise. Documenting a bicycle trip using web 2.0 techniques, for example, would be a similar project without the subtext of needless consumption.

[sangaya]

I don't view their plan as pointless at all. Attempting to document an "average" airline passenger is an interesting social exercise I look forward to reading about. I've recently flown to Germany and Japan from the USA and met extraordinary people along the way.

Also, the added effect to our planet by having a plane that's going to fly regardless carry 2 additional people (plus the weight of their luggage) is minuscule at worst.

I suggest a reading of "The World Without Us" by Alan Weisman for a look at just how durable our planet is. (http://www.amazon.com/World-Without-Us-Alan-Weisman/dp/03124...)

[mcantelon]

Documenting the "average" airline passenger couldn't be done from an airport?

As for "The World Without Us", I'm confident that the world will continue to exist even if it's uninhabitable for humans. The issue is preserving conditions favorable to human survival, i.e. having a functioning ozone layer.

[jules]

Why do you think that the plane is going to fly regardless? If there are 100 people on a plane you're causing 1/100 of the environmental damage. It's true that in 99 of the 100 cases there is no extra plane flying, but in 1 of the 100 cases there is an extra plane flying just because of you.

[ironkeith]

The entirety of all air travel combined amounts to approximately 3% of the World's total CO2 emissions. I doubt he's making much a dent. It's not like they'd be cancelling the flights if he weren't on them.

[mcantelon]

The project, by being centered around the needless use of resources, promotes the needless use of resources. That promotion adds to the impact of the needless usage itself.