The other thing that is also ridiculous that no one is mentioning, is that in the middle of a climate crisis that we allow people to fly as a "hobby". They are not doing anything but just taking joy rides dumping tons of carbon into the atmosphere. Really, all non-essential flights should be banned.
Sounds good on paper until you realize that the same well resourced individuals who can afford to fly a private plane for fun, can probably also afford to hire fixers to get their flights classified as "essential" (eg. "aerial photography"). Instead of wasting time and money playing wack-a-mole with exemptions and debating whether something deserve to be banned or not (are we going to ban leisurely drives as well?), just impose a carbon tax. You want to cause $1000 climate damage by doing your hobby? Fine, as long as you pay a $1100 carbon tax.
The parking lot at meetings more closely resembles the teachers' lot at the local high school than it does the parking lot of any major tech company.
In the end probably similar emission standpoint.
Many still drive decades-old cars (that were practical and modest to begin with), are still rocking iPhone 7s or free Android phones on MVNOs and buying a new tablet for Foreflight is justifiable for safety, stay on old computers years past when any tech person would, dress plainly and inexpensively, only eat out for social reasons (usually aviation-related) and when they do it's somewhere inexpensive, and so on. That's how they save up to get out to Oshkosh.
Pilots are almost famously adept at squeezing more life out of a nickel than anyone. Aviation has its 1%'ers and that's who usually appears on the public's radar, but the incredible tempo of GA operations at even airports in high-income areas is done almost entirely by people who are decidedly middle class.
When a flying club arrives at a destination for the weekend, the official hotel is usually an inexpensive motel, not the Hilton/Marriott/Hyatt. (If they aren't camping.)
Many of the older pilots are still working well into their retirement strictly to be able to continue to fly. They don't remodel their bathroom, they put that towards their engine overhaul fund.
We have younger men and women electing to continue to live with relatives so they can pour everything into flying. They don't spend their non-work hours trying to advance in their career, they spend it studying for their next rating or planning their next flight.
Many work in aviation in decidedly blue-collar roles, because they love the field, financial consequences be damned.
These aren't people who would have the funds for vacation homes and fancy cars and boats if it wasn't an absolute top-priority passion to make it possible.
For every pilot in the club with a fancy plane and a new German car in the parking lot, there are 20 or 30 with ~50-year-old planes that was the cheapest thing they could find when they bought it, fly 15-20 hours a month, and scrimping and saving in nearly every aspect of life to be able to continue flying until their body forces them to stop. People in their 80s doing ~10 hours of cardio a week to stave off time, and people in their 20s who have already lost their medical because of a freak condition but are still showing up every month, desperate to stay a part of aviation however they can.
I would estimate 95+% of them have an income well under any FAANG technical employee. And this is in a place with a very high cost of living.
If this all sounds fiscally irresponsible and borderline stupid, it is. Non-pilots don't get pilots, they never have, and unless they're also bitten by the bug, they never will. Every time aviation comes up on HN many of the comments are Peak HN, as many non-pilots think they can extrapolate their domain expertise to one that's fundamentally almost orthogonal to their own.
So when someone (not you–further up the thread) with effectively no domain expertise casually suggests that the solution to a heavily taxed and inherently financially challenging industry is more taxes to mitigate its issues (which are likely far lower in global impact than some of their own hobbies and interests), it indicates an unfamiliarity with the subject one is proposing to fix. Which is something nobody here enjoys receiving from outsiders, and then we turn around and casually do it to others, ideally backed by the might of the federal government.
If you want to survey a huge area (as opposed to your back yard or a local football field), a plane is still your best bet.
>Sure, carbon tax, how does the tax reduce carbon emissions? If all the resourced individuals you mention just pay it? That only works if it is a disincentive. If they all pay it then no reduction occurs.
A carbon tax targets the entire economy, not just general aviation. The aim therefore isn't necessarily to reduce carbon emissions in general aviation in particular, but to reduce carbon emissions in the entire economy in areas where it would be the most cost effective and least disruptive. That said general aviation isn't a homogeneous group and there is certainly going to be people on the margins (ie. they like flying but they aren't going to spend $1000 more per year on the hobby), and they'll be the ones that will stop flying.
You clearly don't realize that a huge percentage of the "hobby" flying you are proposing banning is either training related or part of the 1500 hours of flight time required by law before one can become an airline pilot. Your suggestion would result in even fewer pilots being available in a few short years, when we're already seeing a huge shortage. If your goal is to shut down aviation as a whole, you're on track...
And that's without even looking at 200mph+ rail.
Should someone with the common cold be allowed participate normally in society? Probably yes, even though they may do slight harm others.
Should someone with Ebola be allowed to do the same? Probably not.
This is pragmatic line drawing. There is no alternative.
We let people generate a little pollution because we accept some is necessary for normal life. But beyond that should be regulated.
This belies a clear misunderstanding of the rights granted to government and its role
I want my government to protect me from my fellow man who sometimes wishes to harm me. If someone punches me or spews leaded petrol in my face, the government should intervene under the enforcement of the non-aggression principle.
Even minarchist conceptions of government understand this basic idea. It seems that yours doesn't.
Also the cause and effect isn't far removed. It's direct, just dilute. Person A is directly harming person B (and persons C, D, E, F, etc) by spewing leaded petrol into the air that person B uses.
There is no important difference between this and assaulting someone. One person is significantly harming another person (by giving them brain damage) without consent from that other person. That's the crux of it.
That said, I agree both harms need attention and the latter is more insidious.
And food, why allow anything but the most optimal from ecological viewpoint?