It would be nice if the author applied his design and writing skills to something more interesting than destroying as much of the ozone layer as possible in a month (or is there some valuable aspect of his project that I'm missing?).
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.
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.
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. :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's not a perfect method of generating electricity, but probably the cleanest of mainstream electricity techniques, with technology like fish ladders mitigating the disruption to wildlife. I look forward to the increased adoption of cleaner alternatives.
You didn't read it. I'm arguing for a more complex model, rather than an idealistic one.
"Less total weight carried, across the system as a whole, would result in less fuel consumption."
While this is correct from very simple standpoint, what are you really saying?
"The system carries n amount of weight." Okay, I can accept that.
"The system carries less weight if one person does not fly." True, but that one person's weight is offset on the specific flight in question by cargo.
For a very large value of n, n-200 = n. An airplane takes a massive amount of fuel to accelerate to rotation speed (it's not just pushing you and cargo, it's also shoving vast quantities of aluminum, steel, plastic and fuel.) The empty weight of a 747-400 (the industry standard) is 400,000 lbs., of which 200 is no factor.
If that empty plane takes off, it will use 100 times the body weight of a human being in fuel during takeoff operations alone and continue to burn as much during each hour of cruise flight. Adding humans decreases range. Adding cargo decreases range. Fuel will be burned.
Your statement assumes a very simple model of "if I don't get on that plane, I'm saving the environment." The actual model is "if at least 200 people don't get on that plane, a seasonally-appropriate ~15 minute delay will happen until cargo can be loaded."
I feel, therefore, that I have contradicted your statement quite soundly. I assure you that I have no interest in representing myself as an environment-hating industry apologist.
I actually did read your post, thanks. Your post didn't seem to argue for a more complex model as much as attempt to make the case that if people weren't flying they'd be doing other equally destructive things.
>While this is correct from very simple standpoint, what are you really saying?
What I'm saying is quite simple. Carelessly wasting resources, as unnecessarily flying nonstop for a month does, wastes resources and we shouldn't condone it.
>that one person's weight is offset on the specific flight in question by cargo.
If someone doesn't fly and cargo is substituted for them, that amount of cargo doesn't need to be flown on a separate flight. The less flights the less fuel consumed and the less environmental damage, no?
