What thoughts, if any, have you had about climate change and WDW?
I’ve had two.
First, I would not like to have to justify flying 4,500 miles each way in business class in order to visit a theme park. There are many reasons why, when they can start back up again, I’m thinking of reducing the number of visits I make to Orlando. But this is one of them.
Second, how is climate change going to affect WDW. Will it become a less desirable place to visit. Might it be the victim of regular, weather-related damage?
Of course, there is an argument that I should visit as often as possible while I still can. You know, when I can.
I will add that, although my flights are bad for the environment, your children are a lot, lot worse.
Maybe not intentional, but what this graphic says to me is that our only hope is population control. Everything else is a drop in the bucket.
So I guess it’s not a bad thing that more and more millennials are just opting out of having kids.
My main concern is that WDW or the state of Florida will be impacted by rising sea levels, especially given that I just bought into DVC, which I assume would be worthless if the state ceased to exist?
As for my personal impact on climate change, I try to be a good citizen: reduce, reuse, recycle. I support alternative energy, including funding for nuclear, wind, solar, hydrogen, geothermal, etc. Whatever is coming down the pike that can reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
But I don’t feel too guilty about my little family taking a flight out to the east coast every couple of years.
I love that you bring up these polarizing topics. Is this a test to see how long it takes to get a thread locked?
I am thinking there are a lot of collateral items that they are not displaying in their results and items that would have a larger impact on the environment. A lot of the time those high impact items are not discussed because the people indirectly funding the article are those that are the biggest contributors to the problem.
The chart displays CO2 as the way to impact climate change, but I do believe there are other factors that would make a bigger impact on the heating/cooling of the planet. Here is one:
" methane warms the planet by 86 times as much as CO2 , according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But policymakers typically ignore methane’s warming potential over 20 years (GWP20) when assembling a nation’s emissions inventory."
Maybe the person writing the article is a big Thanos fan and wants to implement his solution to the problem with a snap of their fingers.
I looked this up while I was typing my last response.
The latitude and longitude coordinates (GPS waypoint) of Walt Disney World are 28.4116733 (North), -81.5825738 (West) and the approximate elevation is 92 feet (28 meters) above sea level .
Have a pandemic - reduces fossil fuel use (fewer aircraft in the sky, fewer vehicles on the road) but limited duration effect.
Properly insulate your house so you energy use drops
Walk to places where you can - added bonus of making your body more fuel efficient
Get used to being closer to the outside temperature when indoors - would cut energy use for heating/cooling.
Then you may be able to justify trans Atlantic air travel but if you are still having trouble with that you could always sail across the pond like Christopher and Walter
I question this data point. Perhaps they come to this conclusion by adding up all C02 emissions and divide it by the population? And reducing by one person would actually just increase the average emissions per person by a miniscule amount, not actually increase emissions by that much?
In any case, if it’s better to have one fewer person, the logic quickly follows that it’s better to have zero people, which is an absurd conclusion. I’m of the opinion that a pristine, climate-change free earth with no people to enjoy it is sorta pointless.
The morality of people having children is dicey to wade into. Not sure we could come to an agreement on how many is ok. So I think it’s just best to leave that decision to people, and make sure they have the knowledge of and access to family planning resources, particularly in the developing world.
Have one fewer child? One fewer than you already have? I think that’s illegal. One fewer than someone else? Who? I can’t have one less than someone who has no kids……
There’s just no pleasing you. You were moaning about arguments about COVID and vaccines, so I stepped away from all that and started this thread, which is nothing at all to do with COVID. And yet still you moan.
My motivation for starting the thread was that I do genuinely struggle with the idea that it’s OK for me to fly 18,000 miles a year, in business class, as I did in both 2018 and 2019.
The no-kids thing does make me feel a little smug, I’ll admit.
Problem with that is people seldom make the choice that is best for the population in general and tend to focus on what’s best for them. I think that’s been pretty evident during the pandemic.
I think this is a well intentioned but myopic statement bc that places the responsibility of protecting the planet on the poor, while those with more means can continue to live the life they want, have 6,7,8 kids, use the central air that they can afford to run, drive their cars, fly to Disney, etc.
Everyone should have to pitch in, not just those at the bottom of the economic ladder.
Shhhhh… it’s against the law in FL to talk about climate change; true story. Miami has daily tidal water flooding, but that has nothing to do w/ FL’s coastline being reduced by rising sea levels. Nope.
All I meant by my statement was that people in the developing world often don’t have access to contraception, so the number of children they have is the number they want. I’m not making a moral judgment on the number they want.
