Numerous flights cancelled after climate activists gain access to tarmacs at Hamburg, Dusseldorf airports, glue themselves to ground, local media reports - Anadolu Ajansı
Aviation is responsible for around 2% of emissions, but it’s also the global connector. While we should refrain from flying when possible just counting on individuals to take the best behavior won’t work.
What should be done:
ban private jets
end all the tax perks for aviation, which allow for insanely cheap tickets that promote senseless flying
ban short over-land flights
simplify ticketing and reduce prices on international trains in Europe, it’s almost always too expensive to cross borders by train in Europe, it makes no sense.
We need aviation, but we also need it to be sensible in a warming planet.
Fair enough; I wasn’t commenting on the idea one way or another, just trying to clarify what I thought the other commenter meant.
Personally, I’m almost never in favor of a ban. I’d rather tax heavily and use the income for programs to offset. I’m 20 years removed from optimism about reducing emissions, so I think we should be leaning into technology that can actively pull stuff out of the atmosphere. That could create an incentive to move away from flying but also use the flying that’s still happening to fund figuring out how to reverse the damage that’s already been done.
Or, hear me out, make it unnecessary to travel distances beyond a day of walking. Work from home was a blessing during the Pandemic, why can’t we make it the standard?
Aviation is responsible for around 2% of emissions, but it’s also the global connector. While we should refrain from flying when possible just counting on individuals to take the best behavior won’t work.
What should be done:
We need aviation, but we also need it to be sensible in a warming planet.
I agree with everything there but a ban on short distance flights. If the prices reflect the costs let people fly.
The problem is that that only happens because aviation gets tax perks that trains or buses don’t.
I think the point he’s making is that our second bullet of your list would make the third bullet unnecessary.
There’s some redundancy, but a ban solves the issue instantly and also creates a strong incentive for better ground transport.
Fair enough; I wasn’t commenting on the idea one way or another, just trying to clarify what I thought the other commenter meant.
Personally, I’m almost never in favor of a ban. I’d rather tax heavily and use the income for programs to offset. I’m 20 years removed from optimism about reducing emissions, so I think we should be leaning into technology that can actively pull stuff out of the atmosphere. That could create an incentive to move away from flying but also use the flying that’s still happening to fund figuring out how to reverse the damage that’s already been done.
Or, hear me out, make it unnecessary to travel distances beyond a day of walking. Work from home was a blessing during the Pandemic, why can’t we make it the standard?
Because I want to see the world while I am here and not just a circumference of human-powered locomotion.