3 ms·
It's still not OK, but it's probably the only practical solution for preventing the Earth from warming above 2 degrees, which the latest science says we only ha
by vfc1 7y ago
It's still not OK, but it's probably the only practical solution for preventing the Earth from warming above 2 degrees, which the latest science says we only have 12 years to prevent.
I don't think even with taxes we can prevent it to be fair, it's going to get ugly. But I for me I've stopped traveling as my kids are now still small, and I don't plan on resuming it once they grow up, at least to visit man-made cities.
Flying across the globe just to visit a tourist trap monument like the Eiffel tower is just not worth it, neither for the experience or for the environmental impact.
But the idea of traveling is still very romanticised and associated with wealth and status, so I don't think people will stop doing it anytime soon unless some measures are put in place.
As for the elites, quite frankly I think things private jets should be literally forbidden due to environmental impact.
- notJim 7y agoI don't think a huge carbon tax (as would be needed to change over to renewables quickly enough) is as realistic as it sounds to the technocratically-minded. If you tell people they can't visit their family who live across the country a couple times per year, they will vote you out of office. Look at the huge negative reaction to fuel taxes in France and the UK. Here in the US, we've got a lovely climate-denying party that is already structurally favored to win anyway. I think you instead need to combine a strategy of making it more expensive in progressive ways with building more infrastructure and finding technology to support low-carbon travel.