Privacy or Environment?

In my city, we have public transport which has two methods to get tickets. Either by cash or using mobile app. When you use mobile app you get a digital ticket, while using cash you get a paper ticket. I’m having conflict on whether to use mobile app which requires my personal data but saves on paper or use cash to have more privacy but consume more paper.

1 Like

It depends on which do you value most.

Using paper instead of the mobile app is good for you as an individual as your privacy directly affects you. I would prefer this method personally.

Using the mobile app is better community-wise as you’d be saving paper.
However I would argue that your paper savings are marginal and less important then giving your credit card details to a -possibly insecure- database.

It also depends on your threat model: cash is the more private way and digital is the more convenient.

Is there any way you can sign up to the mobile app with an alias and use something like to handle the payments?


I doubt it matters if you save the paper used to print a ticket.


Generally, you shouldn’t need to worry about your personal effect on the environment. As long as you are a good steward with your resources and are not purposely wasteful, then you’re perfectly fine.

It is my personal opinion that climate change is a multi-billion dollar scam.
I have come to that conclusion by simply observing a few factors:

  • The planet’s climate naturally changes over time with humans being a minute contributor historically
  • Most recycled items are dumped in the sea or sent to Southeast Asian countries where they are not properly recycled.
  • Green energy will never be sustainable until we make a technological breakthrough. (We see this in California right now)
  • We have not significantly changed the air with our c02 emissions.

So in effect, I believe we are both not changing the climate and that we cannot stop climate change even if we wanted to. The worst consequence that climate change will bring is slightly higher sea levels and the world being a couple degrees hotter.
Anyway, that’s my take on climate change. No need to agree with it, I just ask that everyone takes climate change with a grain of salt.

1 Like isn’t available in my country sadly. I get your point. Thanks for helping :blue_heart:


I agree with the idea that one person printing a ticket per day will cause minuscule effects compared to the tons of plastic, paper and CO2 corporations use, but I’m sorry your take on climate change is really, really inaccurate.

  1. The climate does change over time and historically (Pre-industrial revolution) we didn’t really affect it. So yes, three or four centuries ago do much, but look at the attached image. Seriously.
  2. I’m not sure where you got ‘sustainable energy isn’t sustainable’ from, I mean you can put a solar panel on the ground and it ‘makes’ power for you without anything else, forever. That is the definition of sustainable.
  3. A ‘few degrees hotter’ is the sixth mass extinction event. It is a big deal.
  4. Multi billion dollar scam? The people who are making money are the people ignoring it.
    If you give me a (valid, reputable) source of any of those listed points being true proven by scientific studies then I will believe you.

Sources: Carbon Dioxide at 400 ppm: What Does It Mean? - Blue Skies Meteorological Services


You can compost your paper ticket and probably recharge it before that. And the stockage of an overly large amound of personnal data is consumming lot of energy. Computer are not very ecological (that an euphemism). Don’t worry about the ecological cost of your privacy protection, it’s either negligable or beneficial for the environnement.

I am not denying that humans are changing the air, but I think it’s being exaggerated. When you see graphs that show that we have doubled c02 in terms of ppm it can look quite scary, but as far as I can tell, the earth’s percentage of c02 has only risen from 0.3% to 0.4%.
While I don’t have scientific studies as evidence, and I’m certainly no scientist, it does make you wonder whether you can take officials’ word on climate change. Why the manipulation? After all, these are the same people claiming you can be whatever gender that you believe you are. (Which is not scientific whatsoever)

As for green energy, we have plenty of evidence suggesting that it is not a sustainable option currently. Take California for instance:

  • Their grid is already struggling to provide AC without having to charge all the electric cars that they want everyone to drive. (And they are still using fossil fuels)
  • Wind and solar are both inefficient and expensive.
  • They do not have enough batteries to power California for even a day
  • They do not even produce the green energy needed to power California for a day.

The politicians who are worried about climate change need a reason for you to vote for them. Propagandizing climate change is one of their most effective ways to get votes because in other regards they awful candidates. (California is a gangsters’ paradise, in case you haven’t been watching the news)

Besides for the reasons above, how are we going to get all the lithium we need, and how can you justify making electric cars? The production of electric cars will not be green nor recyclable. (Especially the batteries)

Here are two infographics that you might appreciate:
What’s Wrong With Wind and Solar?
Stop Climate Change Alarmism

If we truly want green energy, then nuclear appears to be our only option.

1 Like

Let me get this straight, you are arguing against climate change, trying to discredit scientist with a transphobic argument, and post videos from a conservative think tank?

Useful idiot or paid actor?


All I’m saying is that cafeteria science is not science. There is no point in bringing facts from the experts when the experts lie to you.
Not to mention, climate change is a relatively new issue. The assumptions of these scientists should not be waved around as facts.

Lastly, I’m not transphobic, racist, or a neo-nazi. I am simply presenting what I have observed and believe. Let’s try to build the conversation, not degrade people with opposing thoughts.

A lot of the videos that PragerU uploads also comes with a facts and sources page. (Including the one on wind and solar.) Just because you do not like their political standing does not mean that you can immediately discredit them.

I would like to mention that to store the data collected about you, it requires energy and servers (materials), both of which have an environmental impact. So, printing paper isn’t necessarily worse for the environment (I mean, it probably still is, but not as bad as you may think)

Are prepaid non-reloadable debit cards available? You could always use those instead of Not as convenient but almost as private if the cards are bought with cash.

1 Like

Feel you there. Somebody gotta make an EU alternative I bet it’d be successful

Short Answer

Truly an excellent response from Alex I couldn’t have phrased it better myself. Slydog while your concern for the planet is admirable I feel like I must bring up the point of diminishing returns. You are a single person using the paper for transit your footprint is arguably negligible.

Long Answer

Big & easy solutions should be priorized basically use the 80/20 rule. 20% of the work solves 80% of the problem. Using transit is better than using a whole car and pumping that with gas everyday too. A plant based diet can reduce your carbon footprint and using renewable energy can as well. The fact that you’re even considering these possibilities is better than most. If you’re putting most of your mental resources into saving on paper you may miss these solutions with bigger impacts. A Tesla also might lower your footprint at the cost of privacy. This very argument could lead you to only write notes digitally and could expose them if they are cloud based. In my opinion use as much paper as you want as an individual if you ever have a company then it makes sense to think about these things. But I think your privacy matters more than some paper savings. And also try not get tunnel vision explore every solution you can; good luck!


So what you are saying is: You have no sources for this information AND you aren’t qualified in any relevant field, followed by four points of ‘evidence’ (Source: trust me bro). How can you actually expect people to take you seriously?

If making electric cars uses metal, what do you think gasoline cars are made out of?
P.S: Metal can be recycled.

You can’t get more hypocritical than this.

Bud, you’re wasting electricity leaving very unnecessary comments on an internet forum while claiming to care about climate change and are calling other people hypocrites. When it comes to even the most simple of tests you fail to live up to your own principle.

Climate hysterics are hilarious.

From here on out, let’s please keep this relevant to the question, which goes under the assumption @slydog values the environment and is trying to balance it with their privacy.

If you want to have climate debates take it to DMs or a climate forum.