5 ms·
"only the 1% fly" is not true, but "only the 11% fly" is a fact [1]. About the 1%: "1% of the population emits 50% of the commercial aviation's emission". You
by abricq 3y ago
"only the 1% fly" is not true, but "only the 11% fly" is a fact [1].
About the 1%: "1% of the population emits 50% of the commercial aviation's emission". You can keep going like that to show that it is indeed reserved to an upper-part of the society. Maybe the ultra-rich are not the only one flying, but they are responsible for a bigger part of the problem than the upper middle class.
Maybe the misunderstanding comes from the fact that we're looking at the global population. Global warming being a global problem, looking only at the population of your region is not a sufficient reasoning. I live in Switzerland, I guaranty that it's a lot more than 11% of the population that flies. At the end of the day, it's a question of moral and of fairness: do we want to live a life-style which can't be generated to the entire global population and which will ultimately lead to extreme conditions for future-generations and poorer social-classes than ours ? Is it fair that 1 person out of 10 gets to fly while the 9 others will have to pay the same consequences ? My personal answer is that it should not be a personal decision, but that politicians should keep these numbers to start making laws such as taxing kerosene to the same level as cars' fuel.
[1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378020307779 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937802...
- hnav 3y agoyou aren’t going to foist those kinds of global limits on the rest of the world, especially not with billions of people in asia emerging from poverty for the first time. They’re going to consume, fly, eat meat and interact with power-hungry AIs. The only way forward is through engineering our way towards minimizing the impact of these activities. The CFC ban was only successful because it was easy to replace them.
- tonyedgecombe 3y agoThen we aren’t going to achieve it because there is no solution to emissions from air travel that doesn’t look like vapourware.
- hotpotamus 3y agoI've come around to believing this as well, but the problem is that that also means that humanity is most likely doomed. Yet another reason I'm glad I never wanted to have children, but now seeing them just makes me sad.
- S201 3y ago> Is it fair that 1 person out of 10 gets to fly while the 9 others will have to pay the same consequences? This isn't an aviation unique topic. You can replace "fly" in that sentence with countless other activities and the same tradeoff applies as virtually every activity currently involves carbon emissions at some point. There is a massive difference between an airliner's emissions flying from US to Europe and your local GA pilot cruising to the next town over to get lunch on the weekend though. Does that person need to fly to do that? No, they could drive. But the guy that wants to go cruise around the lake all day on his boat or drive his semi-truck sized RV to go camping for the weekend doesn't need to do either of those activities yet no one here has a moral problem with that.
- test6554 3y agoI’m working on getting my PPL now and it’s a lot of work. Claims of elitism are going to be thrown around for anything that is difficult and worthwhile. Flying is not the issue. Carbon emissions are. That sounds like something that can be resolved to varying degrees of satisfaction one way or another.
- hotpotamus 3y ago> Flying is not the issue. Carbon emissions are. Are you flying without carbon emissions? I believe this is possible now, and in fact the best use I've seen for electric planes is takeoff/landing training because their range is so limited.