We have /c/fuckcars but no /c/fuckplanes. Yet a lot of the same arguments apply. They cause air pollution (roughly double the amount per km traveled), noise pollution and they (airports) take up a lot of space near dense living areas. Sure, some places can practically only be visited by plane, just like some places can practically only be visited by car. But people don’t consider not having your holiday that far away or giving pushback on a busines trip that should have been an online meeting. Besides work-from-home being encouraged, work-from-home-country should be too.

Cars need to be discouraged in favor of busses, trams and trains. Planes nees to be discouraged in favor of high-speed trains, staycations and hopefully new alternatives like modern sailboats or electric planes.

  • Victor@lemmy.worldEnglish
    323·
    4 days ago

    Just a quick DuckDuckGo AI response. Further Actual research can be done on your own.

    So, cars are worse. But sure, planes aren’t “great” either. It’s just that the amount of cars on the roads of the world is so significantly much higher than planes, as well as number of trips per day, that plane travel fades in the shadow of cars. There’s so much driving compared to flying.

    • OwOarchist@pawb.socialEnglish
      142·
      4 days ago

      AI is not research. This may all be hallucinated.

      And the only way to tell whether it’s a hallucination or not is to check it by doing the research yourself … which is what you should have done in the beginning.

      • Victor@lemmy.worldEnglish
        110·
        4 days ago

        I know. Fixed. But I will not be doing any research myself — I’m not the one interested in finding out information regarding this. OP should be, however, since it seems to be a major concern for them. 👍

        • OwOarchist@pawb.socialEnglish
          161·
          4 days ago

          OP should be, however, since it seems to be a major concern for them. 👍

          And you think OP is incapable of asking the AI?

          What do you think you’re adding to the conversation by adding AI to it?

            • OwOarchist@pawb.socialEnglish
              10·
              4 days ago

              The information is pointless because it easily could be wrong. And now anybody who wants to know whether it’s wrong or not has to research it themselves … which they could have done from the beginning.

              It just adds a layer of wasteful AI slop that, ultimately, brings absolutely no new information to the table.

              • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.caEnglish
                15·
                4 days ago

                Then that’s an ad hominem. There’s always a potential for error so that alone is not per se disqualifying; and despite how much it might anger you, the major LLMs are more accurate than random chance on questions like this. I feel like if you’re going to be bitchy about it (and you seem quite determined to be bitchy about this), you have an obligation to at least do better than the guy who did almost nothing. At least google it or something. Right now you’re just telling us, “I can’t even say that’s wrong, I’m just upset you used an LLM.”

          • Victor@lemmy.worldEnglish
            26·
            4 days ago

            I’m not trying to “add AI” to this, nor am I asking OP to use AI… I am saying that actual research should be done to find out more/actual facts.

            I think you’re derailing this from where I intended it to go. I just wanted to show a quick example of what was already stated — that commercial plane travel is quite efficient, fuel-to-passenger wise. But if “you” want to know more, there’s better sources than the quick AI response, hence why I mentioned that it was an AI response in the first place so there’s no mistaking it for a real quote. I made sure I cropped the image very carefully too, to include that it was AI, so there’s no doubt of that fact.

            We’re on the same side here, of AI hallucinations and all that, friend. Don’t worry. 👍 So let’s put that to rest, thanks.

    • Robin@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      2·
      4 days ago

      So when I did my own research I came to the conclusion that… it depends… There is more going on that just the amount of CO2 being put in the air. It’s being put in a different space, from a different fuel type with different byproducts. Either way, it’s pretty bad for the environment, just like cars are. And we don’t have hybrid or electric large planes yet.

      • Victor@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        4 days ago

        Very interesting findings! So I guess the question then is, are the total byproducts left in the air by air travel “equally” “bad” (by some measure), compared to the total left by car travel, based on the altitude, chemistry, effects on the atmosphere and ozone layer, ecosystems, individuals, etc. Very complex. 😅