This is a case of someone use a "technically correct" fact to make a misleading statement (at least in tone), and then following it up with a 'kill-the-messenge

This is a case of someone use a "technically correct" fact to make a misleading statement (at least in tone), and then following it up with a 'kill-the-messenger' political snipe at journalists. This is textbook contrarian reactionary misdirection. #1 - C02 emissions account for only about half of the overall GHG emissions impact of air travel. Anytime you see someone specifically isolating just the CO2 emissions you know they are either poorly informed or deliberately misleading you. #2 - It doesn't actually matter. If something is 2.5% of X or 5% of X and X needs to get to 0 then the distinction is without a difference. Its only the tone of phrasing that makes this sound like a counterpoint, when it is in fact not. #3 - unlike much of the other 95 percent of emissions airline travel is by far the most uniquely isolated to very wealthy (globally speaking) people. If you believe in any basic notion of "progressive taxation", and you apply that to GHG emissions, then getting rich (again globally relatively rich) people to stop flying or fly less is by far the most blatant outlier to address quickly and early.