dohboi wrote:I ... work nearly everyday with 'homeless' whom I would now consider to be much closer to the ascetic ideal, though mostly that was not their intention.
dohboi wrote:
So really, vegan non-flyers are not some kind of weird ascetics or whatever special name one wants to come up with. It is regular flyers (only about 6% of the world's population are thought to fly regularly) and heavy meat eaters (more than an a few ounces a week) that are the outliers, and who truly deserve to have therefore 'marked' terms applied to them, perhaps flesh-glutton, jet-setter planet destroyers, perhaps??
What well being was actually generated on this kind of tourism? Nothing, just a whole lot of excrement!
onlooker wrote:What well being was actually generated on this kind of tourism? Nothing, just a whole lot of excrement!
And yet rich world citizens work and look forward greatly to these vacations. So the well being is the perception of well being of the participants. Don't underestimate the power of subjective perception
is really not nourishment for the body or soul.
KaiserJeep wrote:I got curious about the relative energy used to transport said tourists. The following table was taken from Wikipedia, the reference for the original data is the Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 30, US Dept. of Energy, 2009.
Transport Mode/ Avg passengers per vehicle/ BTU per passenger-mile
AMTRAK Rail/ 20.9/ 2435
Jet Air/ 99.3/ 2826
Personal car/ 1.55/ 3538
Buses/ 9.2/ 4242
Taxi/ 1.55 / 15,645
Rail is indeed the most economical, but it's only modestly better than a jetliner. Cars are better than buses and almost anything beats a taxi, which spends a lot of time idling empty and must deadhead back from the paid destination.
KaiserJeep wrote:I got curious about the relative energy used to transport said tourists. The following table was taken from Wikipedia, the reference for the original data is the Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 30, US Dept. of Energy, 2009.
Transport Mode/ Avg passengers per vehicle/ BTU per passenger-mile
AMTRAK Rail/ 20.9/ 2435
Jet Air/ 99.3/ 2826
Personal car/ 1.55/ 3538
Buses/ 9.2/ 4242
Taxi/ 1.55 / 15,645
Rail is indeed the most economical, but it's only modestly better than a jetliner. Cars are better than buses and almost anything beats a taxi, which spends a lot of time idling empty and must deadhead back from the paid destination.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Tanada wrote: Taxi companies make money by hauling fares from A to B and they seem to assume that after hauling one person from A to B the taxi then drives straight back to A and waits for the next fare. In the real world taxis have dispatchers that notify cabs in a given area that a fare has called for a ride from C and whomever is closest to C and not otherwise already engaged swings by to pick up that fare and take them to D or A or B. This is done to maximize the efficiency of the cab company so they can show a profit and is a major motivation for avoiding those empty cabs just dropping a fare and heading back to their A starting point empty. Take a cab working the airport circuit, they pick up a fare at the airport and haul them off to the hotel of the fares choice or rarely somewhere else. the cab then picks up someone coming out of the hotel and takes them wherever they need to go, often back to that same airport.
Tanada wrote: Taxi companies make money by hauling fares from A to B and they seem to assume that after hauling one person from A to B the taxi then drives straight back to A and waits for the next fare. In the real world taxis have dispatchers that notify cabs in a given area that a fare has called for a ride from C and whomever is closest to C and not otherwise already engaged swings by to pick up that fare and take them to D or A or B. This is done to maximize the efficiency of the cab company so they can show a profit and is a major motivation for avoiding those empty cabs just dropping a fare and heading back to their A starting point empty. Take a cab working the airport circuit, they pick up a fare at the airport and haul them off to the hotel of the fares choice or rarely somewhere else. the cab then picks up someone coming out of the hotel and takes them wherever they need to go, often back to that same airport.
dohboi wrote:Ibon wrote: "Although I wouldn't say vegan was the historical default of humans, but certainly mainly vegetarian..."
Thanks for getting what I'm trying to say, generally, above. But this part I found curious.
The main difference between vegan and vegetarian is dairy, and most humans are lactose intolerant. Furthermore, lactose tolerance is a very recently evolved trait, and even in Europe where it is perhaps most predominant, many people have or eventually develop lactose intolerance. If your point was that people have been eating eggs when they could get them for quite a long time, I would certainly grant you that. But two eggs for breakfast every morning has certainly not been the norm for most people in most cultures throughout most of history.
Tanada wrote:-snip-
AMTRAK is a paragon of inefficiency and hardly the measuring stick any sane person would use. Japan, Germany, France even the UK with electrified rail in part or in whole powered with nuclear energy and renewables has a minuscule carbon footprint compared to air transport. Air also has a lot of hidden carbon usage in the form of grossly subsidized airports containing thousands of cubic yards of concrete in the landing strips but I will concede that rail has lots of carbon legacy usage in the form of concrete cross ties and steel rails. The stupid buses we use in the USA are also a joke compared to the electrified systems most cities in other countries use with cantenary wires powering electric motors. The USA has gone a very long way through deliberate policy to make our transportation systems fossil fuel dependent from the practice of replacing electric trolley and commuter rail with diesel buses right on up to using jet fuel burning high speed aircraft in thousands of short haul operations better served by almost any of the alternatives through subsidizing these activities. Air travel is useful for long range rapid travel, but any flight of under two hours is ridiculously inefficient. I also find the contention that taxis on average carry no more passengers than a typical private vehicle very questionable. Taxi companies make money by hauling fares from A to B and they seem to assume that after hauling one person from A to B the taxi then drives straight back to A and waits for the next fare. In the real world taxis have dispatchers that notify cabs in a given area that a fare has called for a ride from C and whomever is closest to C and not otherwise already engaged swings by to pick up that fare and take them to D or A or B. This is done to maximize the efficiency of the cab company so they can show a profit and is a major motivation for avoiding those empty cabs just dropping a fare and heading back to their A starting point empty. Take a cab working the airport circuit, they pick up a fare at the airport and haul them off to the hotel of the fares choice or rarely somewhere else. the cab then picks up someone coming out of the hotel and takes them wherever they need to go, often back to that same airport. In the case of dropping the fare off at a different destination like a conference or private residence they still don't just turn right around and head back to the airport, they contact the dispatcher and get an assignment as close to their then current location as possible.
There is a bit of a paradox within these numbers. In spite of them, it is generally the green move for any individual to take existing mass transit over their car. That's because the transit is running anyway, so the incremental cost of carrying one more passenger is indeed less than just about any private vehicle...
As such, these numbers should not make you feel better about taking your car instead of the train. Particularly solo, since solo drivers are what make the car's average efficiency worse while carpoolers make it better.
Return to Environment, Weather & Climate
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 236 guests