The Imminent Danger We Aren't Addressing.

One of the greatest symbols of American progress is actually a killer in our midst.

There is a terrible disease amid American, and world, transportation. The fears that are often dismissed as irrational are, in fact, completely real. This issue isn't just confined to the boundaries of one nation but is a global concern that needs attention. Air travel has become a symbolic feature of our modern lives, and has been celebrated as one of our great achievements, yet the dark side of this convenience is often overlooked. The dangers that airplanes pose aren't just hypothetical; they are real and tangible. It's time for us to examine this issue more closely.

Airplanes are renowned for their supposedly safe reputation. Statistically, they are often considered one of the safest modes of transportation. However, this reputation masks the potential catastrophe that lurks behind every flight. One major accident can cause a large number of fatalities. The risk may be rare, but the devastation is incomparable when it occurs. In addition, when we are driving, the threat of a car accident is largely within our own control - when we are flying, we put our lives in the hands of pilots and ground crews to ensure we make it to our destination. Despite the data supposedly showing that we are far safer in a plane compared to a car, this isn’t representative of reality.

Airplanes are a continuous and ever-present threat to the safety of the world, and we must ban them. Despite being a symbol of human achievement and global connectivity, the dangers they pose are undeniable. From mechanical failures to human error, the risks associated with air travel are multifaceted. The potential loss of life in an airplane disaster far outweighs the benefits of speedy travel. More than this, there is a real danger of these aircraft that we describe as "civilian" being used for military ends. The military potential of aircraft has been well-established since their wide-scale introduction in the First World War, and an unseen danger of civil aviation is their advancement of military potential. All of the research and development that goes into funding "better" civilian aircraft also benefits potential military aviation projects, which could expand and make more dangerous future conflicts. More than that, the wide-scale production and use of civilian aircraft provide a bounty of potential airframes and aircrews for their conversion into military craft, only fueling the fire. Aircraft are a national security threat and should be seen as such.

The American car industry is a part of American culture to a far greater extent than aviation, and protecting it would be protecting the fundamental cultural tenets of America. The car industry has deep roots in American society and represents more than just a mode of transportation. Its preservation not only supports the economy but also upholds a significant piece of American identity and heritage. In contrast, aviation lacks this cultural connection. More than this, the foreign competition against American cars is far more serious than against American aviation, and considering the safety risks it would be no great loss if we gave up on aviation to allow much greater market support for the car industry. 

Air travel is one of the most significant contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. The environmental impact of flying is enormous, contributing to climate change and environmental degradation. Despite the options for decarbonizing aircraft, it is another nail in the coffin for a fundamentally dangerous industry.  By banning airplanes, we take a decisive step toward a more sustainable future. This isn't just about safety; it's about responsibility towards our planet.

While the aviation industry is undeniably a significant economic force, the hidden costs are often ignored. The subsidies, the infrastructure, and the environmental damage all add up. Yes, it is true that political interference has greatly increased the cost of much of the ground infrastructure of aviation, but that is warranted considering their accessory to the danger of aircraft and the number of high-paying jobs created. Investing in alternative modes of transportation that are safer and more sustainable could lead to a more balanced and resilient economy.

In a world where security concerns are paramount, air travel introduces vulnerabilities that can be exploited. From terrorism to cyber threats, the risks are complex and multifaceted. The security apparatus required to mitigate these risks is costly and intrusive. On the other hand, cars and trains are far more benign in their continued existence and provide significantly less threat to civilian infrastructure. Banning airplanes would alleviate these security concerns, leading to a safer world. 

Okay, if you haven't figured out that was satire, we are ending the jig here. Obviously, we shouldn't ban aircraft for any of the reasons listed above, that is a truly ridiculous notion that would be laughed out of any serious debate. However, if you simply replace "aircraft" with "nuclear energy", you would get full-throated applause from across the political spectrum. In the early days of widespread commercial aviation(see chart below), the technology was far less advanced leading to crashes being far more common than they are today, but if you apply that same logic to nuclear energy(which was still less dangerous than coal at the time), you will hear rebuttals that it is still as dangerous.

Source: PlaneCrashInfo.com

The arguments listed above are, when modified for the context of nuclear power, are frequently used in opposition to any further use, or additional construction of nuclear power - usually in favor of solar/wind(from the left) or coal/gas(from the right). None of these arguments truly hold water, when seen in the context of aviation, so why do they apparently make sense in the case of nuclear? They don't. Nuclear is safe, clean, and massively effective. It is the ace in the hole in our fight against climate change, all we have to do is use it. 

If you find yourself feeling suddenly conflicted, as you personally believe that some(or all) of these arguments are valid against nuclear, take this into consideration: anti-nuclear groups are spending $2.3 billion to make you think that. It is a fundamental talking point of the fossil fuel industry that nuclear energy should be directly compared to solar, despite the fact that every solar plant has to come with associated storage(which is almost never factored into the cost, in addition to being an outlay for a finite supply of batteries) when in fact coal and gas power plants are the direct comparison point for nuclear. Both are baseload power, and nuclear beats all of them on both cost and emissions. 

But what about waste, you might argue? First of all, Curio(shoutout!) is making that “waste” a valuable resource for the production of rare and expensive commodities, but even retrospectively, that argument doesn’t hold up. The United States produces about 2,000 tons of nuclear waste per year, which sounds like an awful lot. But tallying up ALL of the nuclear waste that the United States has produced in the last 70 years, you would get about 90,000 tons. In the words of the US Department of Energy, “If all of it were able to be stacked together, it could fit on a single football field at a depth of less than 10 yards.” Simply put, nuclear waste is a non-issue when put in the context of the existential threat that climate change poses, and the continuous danger of airborne illness from coal plants. 

In conclusion, nuclear power is fundamentally a safe and effective way for humanity to combat climate change. Without it, we steepen the uphill climb of our fight against climate change dramatically, for no good reason. The answer is simple, greater investment in nuclear power from government and private sources, and a concerted effort by members of all political affiliations to embrace nuclear power as a vital part of humanity’s future.

If you liked this, please consider sharing it with someone else who might - the power of the Invest with Impact movement is only as great as those who know about it. Please also fill out the form to become an official Invest with Impact member(founder, investor, or member of the community) if you have not already done so. It only takes 4 minutes, and helps us make better content(Please!). See you next week!