• Michal@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    You’re only taking into account pollution and i bet you with the barrier of entry and cost accounted there would be less pollution from flying compared to driving.

      • Redscare867@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I think they’re trying to say that less people would fly than currently drive due to the cost of flying. Although, if we subsidized personal planes at the same rate that we do personal vehicles I’m not entirely sure that flying would continue to be so expensive.

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

        It’s quite simple really. Less people would be able to fly, so those that can’t will just stand still in confusion until they die from starvation. The remaining population would be the small fraction who were able to afford to fly. Net loss in pollution.

      • Michal@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Flying is expensive and you need a license that’s substantially harder to get than a driver’s license.

    • elephantium@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re only taking into account pollution

      Yes, that’s correct. I’m not doing a serious study here, just summarizing the general sentiment I’ve observed.