In a hangar in Colorado, the first civilian supersonic aircraft since the Concorde, the Boom XB-1, is being built right now.pic.twitter.com/W0Cc9PHpMr
-
But I presume the idea is more flights, and faster rather than more efficient? It’s spending carbon (I.e damage) on getting rich people somewhere more comfortably. Enabling surfing lessons in Oahu! (From the website)
If you look at current international business class passengers, it's mostly corporate employees, not "rich people." And the number of trips they take is limited by cost (which won't change), not flight time. You're stretching to find a reason to hate this co. You must see that.
-
-
No, I just disagree with their priorities. I guess my notion of “rich” has changed in the last few years to include people like myself (fairly low grade civil servant), in the context of the impacts of climate change.
-
Sorry for the guilt trip. I get that progress needs to happen, people need better lives. Spending money on burning carbon more quickly wouldn’t be my priority. I guess that’s it.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
As an aside, it must be tricky having people like your responses all the time. That would skew your thinking pretty heavily i imagine.
-
I would have gladly given you a like had any of your comments been informative. You raised concerns, he countered with better information. It's that simple.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Debating whether flying "enables the rich to destroy the environment" gets nowhere because: 1. $39 Southwest flights means about every American is "rich" 2. what is "necessary" vs "superfluous" air travel? Without pricing carbon, "when to fly" is a moral grey area.
-
It’s interesting I haven’t seen this argument about air taxi’s.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.