this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2025
150 points (96.3% liked)

Buy European

3446 readers
1864 users here now

Overview:

The community to discuss buying European goods and services.

Rules:

  • Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. No direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments.

  • Do not use this community to promote Nationalism/Euronationalism. This community is for discussing European products/services and news related to that. For other topics the following might be of interest:

Feddit.uk's instance rules apply:

  • No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia or xenophobia
  • No incitement of violence or promotion of violent ideologies
  • No harassment, dogpiling or doxxing of other users
  • Do not share intentionally false or misleading information
  • Do not spam or abuse network features.
  • Alt accounts are permitted, but all accounts must list each other in their bios.

Benefits of Buying Local:

local investment, job creation, innovation, increased competition, more redundancy.

Matrix Chat

Related Communities:

Buy Local:

!buycanadian@lemmy.ca

!buyafrican@baraza.africa

!buyFromEU@lemm.ee

!buyfromeu@feddit.org

Buying and Selling:!flohmarkt@lemmy.ca

Boycott:!boycottus@lemmy.ca

Stop Publisher Kill Switch in Games Practice:!stopkillinggames@lemm.ee


Banner credits: BYTEAlliance


founded 1 month ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://quokk.au/post/3561775

American Airlines plane engine catches fire after landing in Denver

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] riodoro1@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago (3 children)

Have you heard about that climate change thing?

Turns out having billions of people take trips in airplanes wasn’t exactly thought out.

[–] cornshark@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Hmm according to Wikipedia, modern planes use about 2.25L of fuel per 100km per seat.

According to reddit, trains get about 2.5L of fuel per 100km per occupied seat.

Average SUV gets 15L/100km highway. Assuming high occupancy on a road trip of 4 people, we can say 4L/100km per occupied seat.

So assuming people will want and deserve to take vacations and go somewhere instead of sitting at home, encouraging them to take more flights seems like the most environmentally friendly option compared to the alternatives?

[–] riodoro1@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

You are forgetting that 2 or so billion fortunate people aren’t entitled to a vacation in a warm region simply because they have the means. Tourism in its current shape is the polar opposite of sustainable.

[–] cornshark@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

Hmm I see, but if they vacation closer to home instead of flying to a warm region, aren't they more likely to drive? Wouldn't that cause a worse environmental impact per the math above?

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 5 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Did you know that rice produced nearly as much greenhouse gases as aviation in 2020? Are you going to call on people to stop eating rice? Same goes for fish. And shipping. And landfills. And crop burning. And a bunch more other things.

Did you know that chocolate is in the top 5 of GHG emitters for food? Now only that, chocolate is collected most often by kids in developing countries. Are you going to call for a chocolate boycott? What about people's precious iPhones and Macs? Those unrepairable things that end up on the landfill when a Apple slows then down artificially after a few years? Boycott those, right?

Aviation is a small problem. Cars are a much bigger one. Take a friggin bus, cycle, or walk more. Residential heating is a big problem too. You don't need 25C during the winter in your home. You don't need a 10-20 minute shower. All of those will have a bigger impact than skipping on one or two holidays.

[–] Patch@feddit.uk 1 points 3 hours ago

Did you know that rice produced nearly as much greenhouse gases as aviation in 2020? Are you going to call on people to stop eating rice?

Eating is non-optional. There are no staple foods that have a zero carbon footprint, and rice is not exceptionally bad compared to other starches. Rice is roughly equivalent to aviation because there is a lot more rice-eating going on than flying.

Flying is optional for a lot of people. Most people don't need to fly, or could fly less than they do. Lower-carbon travel options are available for many journeys.

To put your figures another way- if everyone flew half as much, we'd save as much carbon as half the entire global production of rice. That's a lot.

Cars are a much bigger one. Take a friggin bus, cycle, or walk more. Residential heating is a big problem too. You don't need 25C during the winter in your home. You don't need a 10-20 minute shower.

Those are all great ideas and you should do all those things too.

[–] starshipHighwayman69@lemmy.ml -1 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (2 children)

Vanity trips I agree thousands of miles to stand in line to take a soulless selfie in front of a thousand year old temple and get food from an evil American corporate fast food restaurant in the same afternoon. Just stay at home it's pathetic.

[–] cornshark@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

How do you prefer to vacation? What brings you joy?

[–] 79luca79@lemm.ee 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

let people do what they want!

[–] starshipHighwayman69@lemmy.ml -1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Take safety labels and requirements off first. Also I don't want to hear you removed when it finally directly effects you.