Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

FalloutNano t1_ja9mjc7 wrote

Reply to comment by Baul in This “Climate-Friendly” Fuel Comes With an Astronomical Cancer Risk: Almost half of products cleared so far under the new federal biofuels program are not in fact biofuels — and the EPA acknowledges that the plastic-based ones may present an “unreasonable risk” to human health or the environment. by nastratin

Actually, we can quit burning jet fuel, but people don’t want the consequences of removing air travel.

2

travistravis t1_ja9uba8 wrote

fast air travel, anyway

3

hsnoil t1_jaas0ft wrote

You can have fast air travel without it... as long as you don't mind being rail-gunned at multiple times the speed of sound. You won't die as long as the track is long enough to limit gforce, but you may crap your pants

1

travistravis t1_jabtmzk wrote

Man, if I knew my body could handle the stresses, I'd be willing to deal with shit to get back home (9 hour flight) significantly faster, let alone better for the environment.

1

StrionicRandom t1_ja9v844 wrote

Are you saying that facetiously? Because a world without air travel would be exhausting to get anywhere in. How does air travel get removed without posing an extreme burden to society and the economy?

3

FalloutNano t1_jaajekc wrote

Did you not read, or not understand my previous comment? Also, profanity isn’t wanted. Take it elsewhere or don’t reply.

0

cjeam t1_jac9h6f wrote

80% of the world’s population has never even been on a plane.

Mostly what removing air travel would do is mean rich people have to take more time to go places.

0