3 ms·

Some airlines are offsetting carbon emissions, e.g., https://www.jetblue.com/sustainability/climate-leadership https://www.jetblue.com/sustainability/climate-le

Some airlines are offsetting carbon emissions, e.g., https://www.jetblue.com/sustainability/climate-leadership https://www.jetblue.com/sustainability/climate-leadership. Aviation is also a sector where emissions are pretty much unavoidable (long distance electric flight is untenable), and offsetting emissions is the only path forward. Drawing a line and restricting aviation can't work: think of all the important connections, collaborations, business deals, etc that require aviation. One might argue they aren't needed, but such restrictions will reduce the rate of progress/innovation, which is a necessary prerequisite for climate change action. A new solar cell (for example) will not be developed in isolation. The fact that governments don't mandate carbon offsets for aviation at this stage is appalling though. Trivial to do relative to the impact and doesn't really raise ticket prices a whole lot.

angelzen 5y ago
Governments forcing action will not work. Or maybe it will but indirectly: people will revolt, chaos will ensue and economic activity will drop like a rock. For example flying will become too unpredictable. Assuming we want to preserve some semblance of social order, the task ahead is to downsize our intimate desires and expectations of the world.
- bertil 5y ago
  For things like gas in cars, I’d agree with you: making electric cheaper is the way. But aviation is seen as a luxury and a corporate expense, not something for which people would go to the mat. Even the most authority-defying actors have exemplar record on safety (flying, on-board behaviour and identity checks); it’s an international body by construction. As long as a tax or a compensation program is announced in time, fair, uniform, rational and effective, they won’t have the political power to oppose it. You can encourage research and development of electric planes: it’s unclear if it will make sense for larger, or longer distance, but politically, encouraging a shift in technology is a better message than banning, or discouraging flying altogether. If you demand it now, after 18 months of near bankruptcy, many companies will go down (which could be the goal, but I’m not sure that’s the easy way to put it) but if you make the impact on ticket prices progressive in time and clear, I’m not seeing anyone in the street — other than pilots and attendants, and they’ll find a new job.

angelzen 5y ago

Governments forcing action will not work. Or maybe it will but indirectly: people will revolt, chaos will ensue and economic activity will drop like a rock. For example flying will become too unpredictable. Assuming we want to preserve some semblance of social order, the task ahead is to downsize our intimate desires and expectations of the world.

bertil 5y ago
For things like gas in cars, I’d agree with you: making electric cheaper is the way. But aviation is seen as a luxury and a corporate expense, not something for which people would go to the mat. Even the most authority-defying actors have exemplar record on safety (flying, on-board behaviour and identity checks); it’s an international body by construction. As long as a tax or a compensation program is announced in time, fair, uniform, rational and effective, they won’t have the political power to oppose it. You can encourage research and development of electric planes: it’s unclear if it will make sense for larger, or longer distance, but politically, encouraging a shift in technology is a better message than banning, or discouraging flying altogether. If you demand it now, after 18 months of near bankruptcy, many companies will go down (which could be the goal, but I’m not sure that’s the easy way to put it) but if you make the impact on ticket prices progressive in time and clear, I’m not seeing anyone in the street — other than pilots and attendants, and they’ll find a new job.