• Holzkohlen@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    Cheaper? What kinda crack are you smoking? Shit is destroying the planet, it needs to be a LOT more expensive.

    • gohixo9650@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      what kind of crack are YOU smoking? So practically “banning” poor people for traveling anywhere further than 500km than their hometown is the solution? And allow rich people go on as usual?

      The not-wealthy will be the only ones affected by this. Business people were traveling since the birth of the aviation and will continue travelling. This will be just an increased cost in their cost planning.

      So if you’re rich you’re allowed to destroy the planet. If you’re poor stay at home, the planet is in danger.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree, but it’s mostly the Uber wealthy, not regular travelers. It’s bad, but it’s not that bad. Using a whole plane to carry one or two people is horrible though.

    • HardlightCereal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      You get points for being an environmentalist but lose points for accusing any differing opinion of being the result of drug use. That cliche is often used on autistic people to attack them for thinking differently. You should try making your point without cliches.

    • Furbag@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Uh, you know, it is possible to care about two things at once. Wanting airline travel to be cheaper/more comfortable and also less environmentally unfriendly are not mutually exclusive positions.

      As others have pointed out, making it more expensive isn’t going to get rid of air travel, it’ll just be reserved for the ultra-wealthy who will not give a damn either way.