<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: No, Seriously, What&#8217;s the Deal With It?</title>
	<link>http://blog.benjaminfenster.com/2008/06/02/no-seriously-whats-the-deal-with-it/</link>
	<description>A Blog of Musings and Mockery</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 23:37:36 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: just pixels</title>
		<link>http://blog.benjaminfenster.com/2008/06/02/no-seriously-whats-the-deal-with-it/#comment-86</link>
		<author>just pixels</author>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Jun 2008 17:26:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.benjaminfenster.com/2008/06/02/no-seriously-whats-the-deal-with-it/#comment-86</guid>
		<description>In terms of time, if your destination is within -- I'd say -- an 8 hour driving range, take the car instead of the plane.  In terms of money, if there are no unbridged bodies of water in your path, you're probably better off taking the car.

BTW: Taking U.S. transcontinental flight generates as much greenhouse gas as a year of driving -- per person.  I thought that sounded way too high, but the people at http://www.nativeenergy.com said releasing the CO2 at high altitude magnifies its effect.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In terms of time, if your destination is within &#8212; I&#8217;d say &#8212; an 8 hour driving range, take the car instead of the plane.  In terms of money, if there are no unbridged bodies of water in your path, you&#8217;re probably better off taking the car.</p>
<p>BTW: Taking U.S. transcontinental flight generates as much greenhouse gas as a year of driving &#8212; per person.  I thought that sounded way too high, but the people at <a href="http://www.nativeenergy.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.nativeenergy.com</a> said releasing the CO2 at high altitude magnifies its effect.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
