Yes, fuel should be more expensive, but in order to take in all the externalities it would probably be so expensive that all airlines would immediately have to close down.

Maybe that's where we need to get to, all jet fuel based air journeys stopping, but it's not going to please the many rich people - who control the regulations - who wish to use air travel.

If we could properly price in externalities then yes, we'd probably have a better system.

There is a proviso to that, should monetary wealth dictate access to resources like 'ability of the planet to sink carbon' or should that be a separate thing, like access to water. Shouldn't we share such natural resources rather than hand them over to those who already own everything else? In which case, you'd need to price in externalities, and pay to acquire carbon credits (or whatever) if they were available: under such a system people might choose to not "spend" their share of carbon credits in order to faster reduce planetary decline.

The cost of oil has plummeted (which is worrying, but not unexpected, because it’s a leading indicator of economic health and the consensus seems to be that we’re six months away from the next global recession anyway).

Correct. It should.

If your corporation is doing harm, laws will be passed to prevent it and ultimately courts will shut you down if needed.

The first step on this long path is raising public awareness, which this article is doing.

Are you just mindlessly trolling here or do you have a point? Climate change is a thing that concerns people. Waste is a thing that concerns people. Is any of this surprising?

Yes, actually.

Used to be you couldn't even incorporate unless you could make the case that granting the writ of incorporation would have a tangible benefit to the community granting it at large.

It was not a right, but rather a privilege. While it is rarer to see a refusal nowadays, it is still a possibility, and the corporate death sentence is a thing; even if we haven't exercised it in a long while.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_dissolution

Maybe not your corporation per se. But the fact that corporations, which are legal fictions, can be created is because many societies have deemed them to be, on balance, beneficial. Once the balance goes the other way, things should, and are likely to, change.

Also, you are exhibiting all the signs of a troll. Please reconsider the way you are presenting your opinions.

Crime or antisocial behavior can be treated as an isolated situation, but if it is profitable and leads to more of the same, it becomes a cancer.

Why would anyone want any organization to exist that on balance harms society? Profitability is one constraint that promotes welfare, but it's far from the only one.

Transportation of passengers ?