And the emissions are very likely larger than those of Bitcoin.
People can go on vacation by train instead. If you demand people use slow legacy money then I can demand slow legacy travel, ok? ;)
I'm not saying we should leave it as is, but there are easier and more impactful things to focus on.
I mean, if you ignore cargo, sure. If you don't ignore it nor that more fuel is being burned by an average cargo flight (due to more weight compared to a commercial flight), it'd inconvenience everyone.
If you really want to push there are solutions: Packages just take longer over sea (10-15 days) until we switch to an air ship (2-3) based transport system which doesn't have to pay so much energy of lifting.
[1] https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/CO2-com...
And that's the issue : climate change requires a global effort and if we want to have the masses to adapt, then we must have the elite to adapt equally.
The key stat is it'd be enough to reach the UK's target on carbon emissions from flying by 2050, at a cost of 0% for the first flight and 9% on the second (going up steeply from there). Of course, other countries may have different data but the principle should be the same.
The vast majority of flights are taken by a small minority of people; they're taken by the richest. Take the United Kingdom as an example: 70% of all flights were taken by 15% of people [0]. It certainly isn't the poorest taking these flights.
So taxing flights will have less direct impact on the poorest than one might think.
Having said that, I think a charge on carbon is more fair than taxing flights directly.
[0]: https://fullfact.org/economy/do-15-people-take-70-flights/
>A carbon fee and dividend or climate income is a system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address global warming. The system imposes a carbon tax on the sale of fossil fuels, and then distributes the revenue of this tax over the entire population (equally, on a per-person basis) as a monthly income or regular payment.
why? ppl that travel on private jets can travel commercial, or are some people exempt from climate change damage somehow?
However, I belive the parent commenter was more pointing out the unfairness of picking and choosing what to ban rather than imposing a blanket charge on carbon.
This seems to have been missed by most, even when considering that the parent is likely correct that flights have a greater, and increasingly greater, impact on climate change than bitcoin does.
Will contribute 6-10% of yearly emission in the coming years
Maybe private air travel in one country, e.g. from Munich to Berlin could be reduced, but not international flights without any resistance
I think deep down majority knows the climate is changing, but they are not prepared to make any personal sacrifices.
I despair. Many ppl are switching to electric cars thinking they did good, and yet they charge those same cars using energy supplied by burning fossil fuel.
I'm not completely convinced solar panels or electric cars are produced cleanly. More needs to be done about that.
How do we know for sure the energy used to make these are not adding to the problem. Even worse is that old petrol cars will usually be onsold to other countries, so emissions can't be falling?
An individual can only do so much.
Most people will bury their head in the sand. Those who take action may be pissing in the wind without realizing it.