Luccus

Sadly not.

I was told. Without asking. By a long lost friend of a cousin you wouldn’t know.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Edit #2: ICE is a type of train in germany. I mistook “ICE cars” as meaning trains and was wondering how flying is supposed to be more efficient than trains. Hence my confusion.

OG comment (invalid, see Edit #2): Where are these numbers coming from?

I cannot find any source for the 3-4l/passenger/km claim. I cannot find any source for the claim that planes are more efficient. Nothing comes even near this claim.

https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint

https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/rail-and-waterborne-transport

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566

Can you please provide a source?

Edit #1: I just want to add that my old combustion car (VW Up! / Seat Mii / Skoda Citigo) burned around 4.2l/100km. So I according to you, if I had another person with me, I’d beat both planes and trains with what stands uncontested as the most inefficient form of transport?

https://github.com/x89/Shreddit

Mind the caveats.

“What’s up with the wax by the slow cooker?”

“Well, I’ve read about 10 papers on high performance cycling and have concluded, that hot waxing my chain may save about half a watt.”

“When did you last ride it?”

“Also a good question, indeed.”

I’m too lazy to look up the numbers, but I think the premise of this argument is rather weak.

Money spend on social welfare, vastly improves poor people’s lives. When you spend it on corporate welfare, the money tends to go into the pockets of people who are already pretty comfortable.

This is a simplification of a multifaceted issue, but by and large I think this holds a lot more water than just comparing numbers.

Also: There was a pandemic in the time period given, so there might be some selection bias.