While all of that is true, I dont understand how it contradicts my statement that a person spending billions on helping people has higher impact than another person that doesnt.

That his carbon footprint being way higher than that of an average person is outweighed by the positive impact. If every billionaire spent a majority of their wealth on charity we would live in a completely different world.

And a car has a smaller climate footprint than a ship transporting solar panels, or the factory producing them. What is your point?

By all means do so then, please. An asshole spending millions on charity helps way more people than a nice guy receiving government aid.

Fuel consumption is not the deciding factor here. Airplanes use kerosene, which has a higher greenhouse coefficient. Admittedly, it is only 10-20% higher. Way more importantly, emitting at high altitude increases the greenhouse effect by 2 to 4 times.

There have been studies analyzing aviation emissions in the past and even back then, flying had higher emissions. Newer studies suggest those numbers were extremely underestimated (by a factor of 2-3):

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-02847-4

So just going by basic math, if we assume those numbers you posted are correct (didnt check them as I dont think absolute fuel consumption has any relevance for climate effects), we should multiply air plane fuel consumption by 4-12 to get a more accurate number, resulting in an equivalent of 8-36 litres per passenger per 100km. Dont quote me on this last part, it is probably not accurate, I just wrote it in reponse to your fuel comparison.

Even if they ALL drive instead, every person alone in a car, thats more climate friendly than flying. Flying is so incredibly inefficient.

Edit: to specify, with inefficient, I am referring to the resulting effects on climate, not cost or absolute fuel consumption.

Did they say it was?

Sorceress ;)

The land of the free hahaha

Cant even paint your house however you want lmao

Are people told what color to paint their house? By whom?

You I can leave salt out of 90% of dishes without noticing.

Thats what you meant to say.

So if Mamdani is a successful mayor everyone will accept socialism is a good thing, right? Right?

Bro please stop. You are absolutely 100% wrong and have no idea what you are talking about. Just accept it as a an opportunity for uncovering some of the bullshit propaganda your patriot bubble creates.

Do americans actually believe this shit or are you trolling?

When the cells are high they dont see the treatment coming and are easily overwhelmed.

Basic physics

You seem to be gravely mistaken about how physics work and shouldnt act smug about stuff you dont understand. Flying a machine that weighs around 1t per passenger at 10km in the air is not more efficient than rolling on the ground, just because there are more people on the machine. Means of transportation have immense differences in efficiency, thats why ships are even more efficient than cars or trains.

The website you linked doesnt give real world values, which becomes obvious by this passage:

It’s the emission factors companies use to quantify and report their emissions.

Measuring avition emissions has never been easy and lobbyists have taken great advantage of that. Those are the absolute minimum values that could be proven beyond doubt, many years ago when studies around aviation emissions were just in the beginning. Actual emissions are way higher, which should have been obvious to you too if you had read the article instead of parotting capitist propaganda.

Please read up on the matter or at least stop suggesting that flying could be more efficient than driving, because flying is by faaaaaar the worst method of transportation you could choose.

Less than 2% of aviation emissions come from private air travel. Even if you ban those altogether, it wont mean much globally. People have to stop flying regularly, whether the rich stop too or not.

I dont know how you figure that flying is more efficient than driving. Do you mean time-efficient? That should be obvious, but regarding emissions flying is around twice as bad as driving a car alone, around 10 times worse than driving with 4 people in a car.

Its not about blame, its about what options we have for stoppingclimate change. And unlike most other emissions, for aviation the responsibility actually lies with the consumers, the government cant realistically ban flights for good.

Also that ‘if I dont fly on this plane, someone else would’ argument, I hope you realise that its nonsense if you think about it for a second.

Still dont understand why they dont all get shot. Isnt this exactly why americans have guns? To defend against strangers trying to assault you and your neighbors?

Based on the German text on the menu, probably. But that doesnt really explain it.

UK is part of Europe