It's the Jevons paradox. When halogen and florescent lights were invented, electricity was not saved, but our environments got a lot brighter. That brought a hu

It's the Jevons paradox. When halogen and florescent lights were invented, electricity was not saved, but our environments got a lot brighter. That brought a human benefit, but no climate benefit. When LEDs came in the world was already bright enough and at last energy consumption for lighting went down. Now plane engines get more efficient every year. We pack seats closer together on planes to save fuel too. Does this mean we're using less aviation fuel? No, we're flying more people, more often and using much more fuel. And most of the world has never been on a plane so there's lot of room for the sector to grow further. What about other high emissions sectors? Meat and concrete? Clearly lots of potential for the world to increase its consumption to European or American levels and create more emissions. So what's the answer? Taxing emissions to the point that we continue to improve the efficiency of flying and meat, but making it so expensive that consumption doesn't increase- and for the heaviest users decreases. That isn't something that I see happening in a democracy. Especially not one run by the high emissions lifestyle elite. Who in Congress doesn't associate frequently flying with success and fulfilment.