skribbj
Joined 7 years ago
Karma
80
Submissions
24
Member since
Jun 18
Joined 7 years ago
So sure, the train releases less CO2, but if you instead fly and buy carbon credits you prevent 62 times your carbon footprint from the plane ever being released into the atmosphere. But I'm starting to wonder, does my math really check out here? These numbers seem kinda absurd.
1: https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/CarbonOffset/P...
2: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/02/climate/prici...
EDIT: I made some edits to a better source, my inital source reported a flight would release 0.4t when in reality it's closer to 0.2
A lot of discussion from this post from yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20227115
"Physics-based industries are those that rely heavily on expertise in physics. These include oil and gas extraction, nuclear fuel processing, and various forms of manufacturing like fibre optics, lighting equipment, office machinery, cars, ships and armaments."
Oil extraction, gas, and ships. Really? Sure, I get it, these areas wouldn't be possible without prior physics research, and present physicists will create new economic opportunities in the future; but blindly inhereting these fields' economic signifiance to physics seems incorrect. In other news, mathematics worth more than 80% of EU economy - these industries include finance, business, engineering, computing, and entertainment.