3 ms·

2% is not negligible. that's about a fourth the emissions share of cars, which are much more essential to daily life where they are used. we don't have the emis

2% is not negligible. that's about a fourth the emissions share of cars, which are much more essential to daily life where they are used. we don't have the emissions budget for any sacred cows; we need to see a big cut from every source of CO2. the arguments you gave are not that compelling. air travel doesn't need to disappear entirely, but the environment would benefit from having it be a good bit more expensive. part of this could be increased airport fees to help the island nations recoup some of the revenue. > Not only that, but travel exposes citizens of wealthy nations to the real living conditions of people in developing nations, which can have a number of positive political effects. maybe so, but I doubt you could measure this with enough confidence to use as a basis for policy.

ch4s3 6y ago
I'm arguing against the idea that a decrease in aviation is on balance good, and I was trying to avoid just making the economic argument. However, there are tons of economies that rely on tourism to function. There is no clear way to make up for that in the short to medium term. It's generally agreed that economies need to decarbonize energy production ASAP, and that takes money which has to come from somewhere. For many economies less air travel directly means a diminished ability to decarbonize energy. Now let's turn our focus to the nations that originate the travel in question. These places generate a lot of economic activity from travel as well. Now laid off employees of Boeing do not pay income taxes, and use public money in the from of unemployment services. If they were still employed their taxes could go to any number fo climate initiatives, their pay checks could purchase more efficient vehicles, and they could retrofit their homes. Diminished economic activity doesn't position any nation to take active measures towards climate change mitigation.

ch4s3 6y ago

I'm arguing against the idea that a decrease in aviation is on balance good, and I was trying to avoid just making the economic argument. However, there are tons of economies that rely on tourism to function. There is no clear way to make up for that in the short to medium term. It's generally agreed that economies need to decarbonize energy production ASAP, and that takes money which has to come from somewhere. For many economies less air travel directly means a diminished ability to decarbonize energy. Now let's turn our focus to the nations that originate the travel in question. These places generate a lot of economic activity from travel as well. Now laid off employees of Boeing do not pay income taxes, and use public money in the from of unemployment services. If they were still employed their taxes could go to any number fo climate initiatives, their pay checks could purchase more efficient vehicles, and they could retrofit their homes. Diminished economic activity doesn't position any nation to take active measures towards climate change mitigation.