Have you taken an extra trip - just to reach status on airline
Nov 23rd, 2009 | 09:56 AM
#23
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 19,878
Likes: 79
AnthonyGA's point is valid to a degree. There's a lot of debate as to how much this sort of voluntary flying adds to one's carbon footprint; it turns out that by most measurements (passenger-mile, ton-mile etc.) commercial air travel is among the least-polluting transport sources, with e.g. cruise ships and cargo ships being among the worst.
To their credit, a number of airlines now offer carbon-offset payment options at the time of booking, something which I've yet to see available at most gas stations, bus terminals or train stations. Assuming they've used okay science, the payments aren't too high, considering.
To their credit, a number of airlines now offer carbon-offset payment options at the time of booking, something which I've yet to see available at most gas stations, bus terminals or train stations. Assuming they've used okay science, the payments aren't too high, considering.
Nov 27th, 2009 | 11:21 AM
#24
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 2,121
Likes: 0
Every additional passenger on an airplane increases the amount of fuel it burns, so even if the airplane is already flying, if you join the flight, more fuel is burn, and more pollution is produced.
It is true that airlines contribute far less to pollution than most people seem to think, but the fact remains that flying unnecessarily conflicts rather blatantly with any stated purpose of reducing pollution.
Most air travel is unnecessary, anyway. Tourists obviously don't need to fly, since they don't need to take trips and could take trips by other means. Businesspeople don't really need to fly, either, since meetings and virtually all other business can be held electronically today. But it is clear that many businesspeople fly more than they have to just to pick up frequent flyer miles.
It's interesting how people never apply the same standards to themselves that they insist on applying to others.
It is true that airlines contribute far less to pollution than most people seem to think, but the fact remains that flying unnecessarily conflicts rather blatantly with any stated purpose of reducing pollution.
Most air travel is unnecessary, anyway. Tourists obviously don't need to fly, since they don't need to take trips and could take trips by other means. Businesspeople don't really need to fly, either, since meetings and virtually all other business can be held electronically today. But it is clear that many businesspeople fly more than they have to just to pick up frequent flyer miles.
It's interesting how people never apply the same standards to themselves that they insist on applying to others.
Nov 27th, 2009 | 03:41 PM
#26
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 37,526
Likes: 14
>>>It's interesting how people never apply the same standards to themselves that they insist on applying to others.<<<
Yes, it is interesting. In the lounge there is a thread about Michelle Obama's dress. The designer flew to India three times just to check progress on the dress while Obama is touting his energy initiatives and how we should each take responsibility for our own energy use and try to conserve. I should be able to take at least three trips (long ones) this year to catch up with the unnecessary flying related to one dress for one night.
Yes, it is interesting. In the lounge there is a thread about Michelle Obama's dress. The designer flew to India three times just to check progress on the dress while Obama is touting his energy initiatives and how we should each take responsibility for our own energy use and try to conserve. I should be able to take at least three trips (long ones) this year to catch up with the unnecessary flying related to one dress for one night.
