Travel is fairly trivial environmentally. Having a long commute by car is worse than traveling around the world by air every year which is extremely uncommon.
On average a passenger mile on a modern jet uses significantly less fuel than driving that same mile.
Erm no, since you don'r fly a plane for 5 miles usually. Plane flights are by nature long distance and consume way more than your yearly car consumption even if you have a 2 hours commute every day.
Sure, but it is reasonable to consider a long trip vs a longer commute in terms of lifestyle and environmental costs. At which point you care about total fuel costs not direct equivalency.
747 burns approximately 5 gallons of fuel per mile and holds 568 people. They are over 70% full on average which works out to:
568 x .7+ / 5 ~= 80+ MPG. At the equator the world is 24,901 miles ~= 300 gallons at worst though most most people consider around the world to be US > EU > Asia > US which is shorter than that.
On the other hand at 3 gallons (which is far from extreme) / day x 48 x 5 = 720 gallons ignoring all other driving.
PS: On top of that for longer trips aircraft tend to take more direct routes. You can't just drive from NY to LA on a strait line which significantly reduces cars effective MPG.
I found this data[0] care of The Guardian regarding pollution created per passenger mile. The GP said fuel per mile but the GGP was talking about pollution. It’s from 2009 so it’s likely in the right ballpark but not 100% accurate given the model of plane they used (737-400) has been largely replaced with newer/denser/more efficient models (737 Max 7/8/900 series) as have cars gotten more efficient. Basically, if you drive an SUV or high end sports car, you’re in the same ballpark as a full plane. If the plane is half full or you drive a small car, the car wins per passenger-mile (or km in this case).
Aircraft fuel efficiency has gotten dramatically better since 2009. Utilization is over 70%, wingtips added 3% fuel efficiency, plus slightly slower fights, and many older aircraft where retired during the spike in fuel prices.
I'm not suggesting driving instead of flying. I'm saying don't travel, which is a net reduction in fuel burned, regardless of one's daily commute situation.
what could be more fun than turning the earth into a smoking pit of despair to chase a few dopamine drips and satisfy evolutionary urges that are no longer adaptive?
On average a passenger mile on a modern jet uses significantly less fuel than driving that same mile.