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 to

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.