brit girl won't go to oz xc because of CO2 - she is the anti-Sage

How about the kid simply wants to contribute to a better world? Some do that by volunteering, some pick up garbage on the side of the road, and some do that by watching their level of pollution. Hell, a 13 year old invented that awesome ocean cleaner thing just a few years back. It has cleaned TONS of garbage from our oceans.

Not everything is a doomsday issue. No need to rally the “sane” people. You can cool it with the fake outrage.

Accusations of "tone-policing" are a weak thinker's way of weaseling out of a losing position. I have no idea what "tone-policing" is, and, truly, neither do you. The words you wrote, however--not your "tone," whatever that is--imputed a position to Innes FitzGerald that she never asserted in her comments, and, in doing so, helped to diminish what might have been a (still gratuitous) vigorous debate into, as you so aptly said, a merely vociferous one. For example, you have no idea how it makes Innes FitzGerald (or others in her same position) feel to turn down opportunities for travel; you suggest that she does it to "feel good," but you don't know how much grief she may be in to think that being true to her beliefs will foreclose these kinds of activities in her life. Your editorializing is not a meaningful contribution to this debate.

Also, speaking of hiding, please don't hide your sneering contempt for a young woman acting on her principles behind claims of doing the public some heroic service, like "[preventing] these kinds of non-productive ideas from taking root in the world." Jesus. I've never heard such a fatuous, self-aggrandizing euphemism for "criticizing a stranger for a decision that has no impact on anyone else but that made me feel bad." It's not a good look, H.

Just did the math for a Boing 747. It takes about 21.5 hours to fly from London to Sidney. Flight would burn an estimated 77,400 gallons of fuel. Divide that by, say, 500 passengers and you get 154.8 gallons of jet fuel per person, which given the distance isn't that bad. Obviously, if one or two people decide not to fly, it doesn't make any practical difference, but if enough people decided not to fly as much, it could have an impact. As witnessed by this thread, the girl is at least feeding that conversation.

Personal opinion here, but to paraphrase Bill Nye (the science guy), the most important thing that someone who wants to have an impact on climate change can do is vote for people who will actually do something.

Who wants to go to LA? Full of guns and exploding volcanos and earthquakes and Arnold Scharzenegger lives there.

If you have no idea what 'tone-policing' is -- how do you know it's a way to weasel out? That's a direct contradiction in your first sentence! Disappointing!

You seem to think that critiquing someone's personal choices after they choose to publicize them is rude/not allowed. Do you really think that sharing ideas 'has no impact on anyone else?' That's just wrong? If she had refused to fly to Australia because she felt uncomfortable with their prior vaccine mandates would she be protected from criticism? She's not saying we need to feel the same way!!!1

Your anger about me disagreeing with someone (and calling them out on their harmful beliefs (my opinion!)) stems from 2 things (In my not-so-humble opinion):

1) You agree with her and, moreover, seem to look down on us first world elites traveling around the world at the ecological expense of everyone else. This is not an evidence-based feeling, hence the defensiveness when it's called out.

2) You think she needs defending. She doesn't. I'm certain she's more than capable of justifying her beliefs against opposition, or she simply is well-adjusted enough to ignore people babbling on a message board. What she doesn't need is white knights charging into accuse people who disagree with her of misogyny. Sadly, this trope is as old as time.

But what has she actually done? How does she reduce carbon emissions with this choice?

I think it would be more like 200-350 gallon per person, depending on the plane and route, and assuming mostly full flights. Did you factor in the return?

According to charts in the link below, for long flights, fuel efficiency is around 60-100 mpg per seat. Best case scenario is four ~5500 mile flights, each on a modern twinjet.

en.wikipedia.org

Fuel economy in aircraft

The fuel economy in aircraft is the measure of the transport energy efficiency of aircraft. Efficiency is increased with better aerodynamics and by reducing weight, and with improved engine BSFC and propulsive efficiency or T...

Link:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_...

IMO, this is a LOT, for one person on one short trip. If it's worth it to you, that's great. Frankly, it would be worth it to me, as well. But...it's not nothing.

Being a crazy nut job does not change the basics of chemistry: burning hydrocarbon is guaranteed to generate carbon emissions. This cannot be changed and is a very simple concept. Ask an adult with a brain if you need help you understand this.

It’s public transit. It’s not like she’s taking a Lear. Better option and probably more efficient than diesel or coal ship. I guess she could hitch a ride on a nuclear sub.

Most importantly she has publicised the issue (a lot of people want to keep their head in the sand) and perhaps emboldened/inspired people to make their own hard choices - whatever they may be.

I'm far more interested in why the snowflakes here are so triggered. So some kid decides not to go on a plane ride: big deal - why the insane levels of outrage and handwringing? She's got their number for sure. Sad for them.

She made the point effectively... we're here talking about it.