[KingM]

Actually probably not. Rail transport has a pretty heavy carbon footprint. It MAY be Ok when it is heavily housed in an urban situation. Same with busses, run full at rush hour they make sense. But those lightly used late night and week end runs? Often greener to drive, especially if you have 4 or more folks together.

Not really, no. The train is going to be running whether you're on it or not, so unless you're chartering the train, it's always greener to hop onto a train to go where you want to go.

[onlooker]

Perhaps, we should change the thread to car culture is killing the planet

How many cars are there in the world currently?

It is estimated that over 1 billion passenger cars travel the streets and roads of the world today. 
The 1 billion-unit mark was reached in 2010 for the first time ever.

http://www.worldometers.info/cars/

[Tanada]

Perhaps, we should change the thread to car culture is killing the planet

How many cars are there in the world currently?

It is estimated that over 1 billion passenger cars travel the streets and roads of the world today. 
The 1 billion-unit mark was reached in 2010 for the first time ever.

http://www.worldometers.info/cars/

2010 was in this sense quite a while ago, since then China alone has added over 100 million vehicles to its streets and roads! Then you need to add in India, Thailand, Indonesia and so on that are all additionally undergoing rapid expansion of their vehicle fleets.

[Plantagenet]

I was very happy to see that the Norwegian Hurtigrupen Cruise Line, which specializes in high latitude trips to the Arctic and the Antarctic, is shifting all their cruise ships over to run on fuel made from rotten fish.

dead-fish-cruise-scl

This means the Hurtigrupen Cruises will be "carbon neutral", at least in terms of the fuel for the cruise ships.

This is pretty remarkable.......cruise ships whose carbon emissions will be roughly equivalent to a bicycle.


How to cruise Antarctica with zero carbon emissions?.......use rotten fish for fuel

Cheers!

[Revi]

I had an idea for low carbon tourism. Here in Maine we could be leaders. Ideas: follow Thoreau around Maine in a canoe. Take a windjammer cruise around the coast. Do Outward Bound. All carbon free trips. Of course you'll have to pull up the sails and paddle your canoe! You can get to most of them with a bus!

[dohboi]

Nice idea, Revi.

Meanwhile: Air travel is surging. That’s a huge problem for the climate.

US airlines have an abysmal carbon footprint.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environm ... ons-travel

Greenhouse gas emissions in the United States appear to be on the rise again after years of decline. The Rhodium Group recently released preliminary estimates showing carbon dioxide emissions overall surged 3.4 percent in 2018, with the transportation sector leading the way as the largest source of emissions for the third year in a row.

Interestingly, the bump in transportation emissions didn’t come from cars. Car travel increased compared to 2017, but gasoline consumption decreased. That’s in part because overall fuel economy in passenger cars is improving as engines become more efficient and electric cars become more popular.

Instead, emissions from trucking and air travel helped contribute to the overall increase: Demand for both diesel and jet fuel increased about 3 percent in 2018...

[Revi]

Flying is the ultimate consumer product. There are some who travel for business, but most of it is unnecessary nowadays, with the internet. The marketing of far away places is mostly for people to engage in conspicuous consumption. (except for going to Maine, of course, which is okay. Especially if you spend some money while you're here)

[Ibon]

If you ever doubted that we have become Kudzu Apes then just watch this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4mU4X6 ... ture=share

[Cog]

If you ever doubted that we have become Kudzu Apes then just watch this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4mU4X6 ... ture=share

I guess I might share your concern if the video was actually available.

[Ibon]

If you ever doubted that we have become Kudzu Apes then just watch this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4mU4X6 ... ture=share

I guess I might share your concern if the video was actually available.

I sent this to my daughter in the US as well and she could not view it. But it works in europe and here in central america. It is a documentary by DW (Deutsch Welle)

I guess there is restricted access to this video depending on where you are trying to view it.

I can't view certain content here in Panama from the US as well.......

you are not missing much , just a bunch of kudzu apes destroying pristine areas through mass tourism...

[Revi]

Why not take a cruise that's carbon neutral for real!
https://sailmainecoast.com

[Newfie]

Elsewhere on cruising forums there are threads that lament the damage we do directly or not. In current one goes something like this “People who anchor out are killing the planet.” The concept, true, is that there are places where so many folks anchor that they disrupt the sea bed, the elk grasses in particular. It’s also a concern in tropic areas where there are delicate coral systems. But it also goes to anchoring and derelict laws notably in Florida. Land folks get annoyed that boats anchor in front of their houses and obstruct the view. Everyone gets annoyed that irresponsible folks get boats and then allow them to deteriorate and sink. Removal costs are hugely expensive and consume large legal fees not to mention the physical work of removal.

The root cause of All these problems, and so many more, is that humanity is over pressing upon Earths resources, stressing the ability to absorb our impact without injury. It’s not that humans are mean and dirty animals, we are but that’s not the problem. There are many other meany and dirty species and they fill some natural niche. The problem is our sheer numbers are overwhelming Earths recuperative abilities.

All these silly “XXXX is killing the Planet” threads can simply be summed up as sly attempts to blame others, to avoid personal introspection and responsibility. The one true statement is that HUMANITIES OVERSHOOT is killing the Earth in oh so many ways, death by 7.5 thousand thousand thousand cuts.

[GHung]

If you ever doubted that we have become Kudzu Apes then just watch this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4mU4X6 ... ture=share

I guess I might share your concern if the video was actually available.

I sent this to my daughter in the US as well and she could not view it. But it works in europe and here in central america. It is a documentary by DW (Deutsch Welle)

I guess there is restricted access to this video depending on where you are trying to view it.

I can't view certain content here in Panama from the US as well.......

you are not missing much , just a bunch of kudzu apes destroying pristine areas through mass tourism...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMYc1Yd-bEw

[dohboi]

Ah, Newf engaging in false equivalence again.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/too ... quivalence

Logical Form:

Thing 1 and thing 2 both share characteristic A.

Therefore, things 1 and 2 are equal.

Yes, nearly everyone is participating in the demise of the living planet, but some activities are clearly much more damaging than others.

When those most damaging activities are also things we can easily do without, it is completely appropriate to rail against them.

[Newfie]

The verb rail means to criticize severely. When you rail against increased taxes at a town meeting, you speak openly and loudly about how wrong the increase is and point out the problems it will cause.

Yes, you are good at “railing”. Loud and often. Boooring!

Try this on for variation. I think you may find it effective, but you will need a lot of practice.

Constructive criticism is the process of offering valid and well-reasoned opinions about the work of others, usually involving both positive and negative comments, in a friendly manner rather than an oppositional one. In collaborative work, this kind of criticism is often a valuable tool in raising and maintaining performance standards. Because of the overuse of negative, nagging criticism, some people become defensive even when receiving constructive criticism given in a spirit of good will. Constructive criticism is more likely to be accepted if the criticism is focused on the recipient's work or behavior. That is, personality issues must be avoided as much as is possible. Critical thinking can help identify relevant issues to focus on. Especially sensitive individuals may adopt a passive, defeated attitude if they view a situation as personal, pervasive, or permanent. Others may adopt an aggressive response. In an online forum lacking face-to-face contact, constructive criticism can be easily misinterpreted and online exchanges often spiral out of control, becoming flamewars. Effective interpersonal communication skills can be helpful to assess the recipient's frame of mind. During initial exchanges or when encountering defensive individuals, effective criticism calls for softer language and inclusion of positive comments. When the recipient strongly identifies with contentious areas, non-offensive criticism becomes challenging.

[dohboi]

You prefer to sail, I prefer to rail

[Revi]

I think sailing and railing (as in taking trains) are both good solutions to the problems we are facing.

[dohboi]

Nice one, Revi!

[Newfie]

Meh, depends. Sailing and railing both have many contextural meanings. HSR and cruises to nowhere are both high on my personal hit list.

The issue I have with the “XXX is killing the planet” meme is it focus on individual groups of people and scapegoating them. If the focus were on the ACTION then I would have a different response. Focusing on the action then leads to analysis of that action, what causes is, and how it can either be modified or averted. Focusing on a class of people just stigmatizes and makes them enemies rather than allies. ostracizing vs conversion. It’s simpler to blame than convience, but far less effective.

[KaiserJeep]

The real issue is the whole "killing the planet" meme. I mean, if the choice is between "X" numbers of people killing the planet by consuming resources, or "2X" the number of people killing the planet while making themselves miserable by being frugal in everything they do, in the process consuming half the resources per person, then it is completely obvious that the optimum and more preferable and more manageable alternative is #1, because half the number of people will suffer the consequences of insufficient resources.

I mean, there are 7.7+ Billion people on this Earth. If they were all perfect and greedy and careless bastards who consumed 7X the resources necessary to live, we would have about 1.1 Billion humans, within the capacity of the planet, who could all live happily and renewably forever.

However, because we have some multiple of the number of humans the Earth can tolerate, we ARE killing the planet. Thoughtfull and considerate and wise thinkers would do everything they can do to avoid further growth in human numbers, which is hastening TEOTWAWKI, and endorse activity that "killls the planet" quicker and with less cumulative damage.

We have discussed this same point many times. dohboi does not want to have this discussion, and (judging by previous actions) will ignore this observation and simply not discuss it. Days or weeks later, he will revive the thread with some other sillly link.

(personal observations about dohboi and his reasoning removed by me, they were ad hominems.}

dohboi, please confront this conumdrum about human overshoot. We HAVE asked you more than once.