This seems overly myopic to me. Aviation accounts for at most 2% of global juman CO2 emissions during normal years. I think you could come up with dozens of arguments for why it’s a net good. For example, tourism has income allows small island nations to better financially prepare for rising sea levels far in excess of aviations contribution to sea level rise. Not only that, but travel exposes citizens of wealthy nations to the real living conditions of people in developing nations, which can have a number of positive political effects.
You could probably make that up by driving less, since a typical passenger vehicle emits about 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. If you look at the UK, it's estimated that 20% of the nation's emissions are directly from heating and hot water, which is analogous to many areas of the US. This is largely due to old and poorly insulated housing stock.
This isn't meant to be CO2 whataboutism, but rather to compare meaningful individual contributions to emissions. IMO aviation for most international travelers may be a large single contribution, but they do it infrequently and other activities could be moderated of modified to make up ground. I mention this to support my parent claim that aviation has numerous benefits, and they may likely outweigh their costs accounting for externalities. That said, I would advocate a carbon tax that prices emissions into things like gas, heating, flying, etc.
There's really no budget for burning kerosene if we are serious about the 1.5 degree target. The only way I see aviation being compatible is if there is a massive breakthrough in biofuels or battery technology.
[1]https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SR15...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviati...
http://www.kimnicholas.com/uploads/2/5/7/6/25766487/fig1full...
What about taking a normal person and not an American? Even compared to other developed, Western-type nations, the US emissions are terribly high (only matched by the other 2 large Anglo-Saxon colonies); but triple of UK and France per capita emissions. And those 2 are already over the emission budget.
the arguments you gave are not that compelling. air travel doesn't need to disappear entirely, but the environment would benefit from having it be a good bit more expensive. part of this could be increased airport fees to help the island nations recoup some of the revenue.
> Not only that, but travel exposes citizens of wealthy nations to the real living conditions of people in developing nations, which can have a number of positive political effects.
maybe so, but I doubt you could measure this with enough confidence to use as a basis for policy.
However, there are tons of economies that rely on tourism to function. There is no clear way to make up for that in the short to medium term. It's generally agreed that economies need to decarbonize energy production ASAP, and that takes money which has to come from somewhere. For many economies less air travel directly means a diminished ability to decarbonize energy.
Now let's turn our focus to the nations that originate the travel in question. These places generate a lot of economic activity from travel as well. Now laid off employees of Boeing do not pay income taxes, and use public money in the from of unemployment services. If they were still employed their taxes could go to any number fo climate initiatives, their pay checks could purchase more efficient vehicles, and they could retrofit their homes.
Diminished economic activity doesn't position any nation to take active measures towards climate change mitigation.
It doesn't surprise me that the HN crowd lacks the empathy to see the damage being done here, but say for instance someone told you couldn't code anymore, you lose your job, and you might have to pivot into another industry at a time when nobody's hiring and you don't even have the skills or training to get in the door. Then some pompous asshole online says "well ackchually this is good for the environment because computers consume energy and don't run off of the hot air I blow everytime I open my mouth"
I would be a huge fan of Medicare for All and more robust safety nets resulting from this carnage, but I don't expect it. People are irrational and selfish in aggregate, and when times are good they are entirely apathetic to the political process. Only under duress do they scream "do something" to the people they've elected who actively do harm to their constituents' interests.
Every industry that dies or suffers a setback is a tragedy, but it's also the unavoidable result of progress, of capitalism, and of any sort of active economic activity.
And the people involved can be taken care of. There doesn't need to be pain an suffering unless society decides that people who lose their jobs because of something like this need to suffer.
And for the record, a close friend of mine did indeed lose the ability to code. He dropped out of his PhD and become a shop security guard for 7 years. Not exactly his dream job, but he accepted it and it worked out. There are millions, probably billions, of people in the world who don't get to work their dream job. Pilots and flight attendants aren't the only ones. I'm all for helping them.
None of that changes the fact that excessive air travel does a lot of damage.
That necessarily implies that fewer people should be able to travel.
On the other hand, events with friends, lovers, annual festivals (yacht weeks, film festivals, music festivals), getting immersed somewhere else so long that you take classes and go about the day to day with others in the class, actually enjoying taking cross country trains because they are a fast and viable form of transportation. Can't wait till that is viable again! Many of those things are possible in the US, many of the events are just not in the US and their original locations are better for it, there are also lots of people not interested or capable of coming here, who I like to be around.
But that's because there are so many other travelers. Conditional on survival, travel is looking more appealing post-COVID.