I think this needs to be approached as a matter of degree, not a blanket statement. Some flying saves lives directly: Medical evacs, the military, etc. Some is worthwhile. The question is, where do we draw the line?
Is it worth it for climate scientists to fly to a conference that will accelerate progress on climate change? Is it worth it for someone to fly to see their elderly parents? To woo someone they are likely to marry, providing a lifetime bond for two people, and possibly making new people? To fly to the Olympics as a spectator? For what purposes is telepresence a sufficient substitute?
I think the threshold should be raised much higher and climate change needs to be addressed as a crisis. Even people who believe the science seem to not quite embrace the changes that need to be made; there is a lack of leadership setting new standards and telling people the hard facts: When is flying worthwhile? This study of this question, and many others like it, should be mature and well-known and not a relatively novel idea on HN.
If people are the cause of climate change, then fewer people seems like the best solution, no?
It's the 'dead great-grandfather principle' [0]:
"He’s much greener than you, you cannot compete with that. If you move into a smaller apartment, your grandfather is in a very, very small apartment. It’s underground, there’s no lighting, there’s no heating, he doesn’t have any broadband."
I don't disagree with you or the parent comment at all, I absolutely believe that we should be limiting our carbon emissions. But at its core this is a philosophical problem as much as a scientific one. To what extent do we have the 'right' to change the climate? Should we have a per-person carbon allowance? A global one child policy?
[0] http://www.wired.com/2011/02/transcript-of-reboot-11-speech-...
It may not be a very novel question. What right do we have to pollute our environment? I can't emit lead from my car, or toxic vapors from my home or workplace. Greenhouse gasses are just more gassous pollutants among many others.
Flight connects foreign countries and unites cultures. A hundred years ago, you would never experience a remote island in the pacific, and there would certainly not be an international tourist industry on that island. But flying makes it possible to go through a door, sit down for 18 hours, and emerge in a completely different part of the world, surrounded by a totally new culture. You benefit from that, and so does the culture you visit. Even if the economics are asymmetrical, such that you can visit the island but the islanders cannot visit you, at least you can provide a window for them to experience your culture in the same way you experience theirs.
With literally any culture in the world available to you at a moment's notice, flying promotes the idea that we are all one species, one people, one family. The importance of this cannot be understated. Learning about other cultures allows you to empathize with them, to see them as fellow humans instead of some hypothetical out-group. Flying turns the world into a global cultural melting pot, instead of a disjoint collection of conflicting groups.
The importance of this cannot be understated. Globalization, for all its problems, is primarily a uniting force, and certainly one that promotes world peace. The more you learn about your fellow Earthlings, the more you experience other cultures, the more you realize that human culture is one unified work of art, and to harm one is to harm them all.
So no, flying is not something that "we don't have to do." It is, quite literally, one of the primary forces contributing to relative world peace.
Maybe your record is just too short. Sometimes size matters:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/m...
For overland travel, I guess we already know the answer: High speed electric trains and electric cars / buses (which will eventually become self-driving), with the power being generated by renewables/nuclear.
For travelling over oceans, it's much more difficult. Are there any realistic concepts out there? A new generation of sailing ships?
It's really disappointing to see the lack of political leadership on this stuff. Nobody in politics is saying: "we're going to have to stop flying one day, it might be a good idea to start funding the alternatives"
Purchasing carbon-offsets are also a meaningful way to (arguably) help reduce your footprint if you find yourself flying a lot.
2011's Climategate should give pause to your hysterical mindset.
Have all of your social circle implement the changes and monitor the data for a few decades to guage the effectiveness of your proposal.
So you are saying, wait twenty years to see if we are wrong?
However, there are many more reasons to be skeptical about the alternative theories for these phenomena. We also should be skeptical about the alternative theories of what is happening with our climate, and about the people who propogate those theories and their funding and agendas.
In my mind, the body of research is far too large to doubt due to inevitable flaws here and there, the expert consensus is overwhelming and far too broad and deep to be a conspiracy, and the predictions have been relatively accurate. If someone can provide a better model for our climate and what is happening, I'd be interested, but delaying action further is an unacceptable, unjustified risk with such high stakes and exceptional evidence.