> does not share the opinion that climate change should be addressed by reducing emissions.
The opinion that it should be addressed or not? Because there's no feasible route to addressing it that doesn't involve reducing fossil emissions.
The opinion that it should be addressed or not? Because there's no feasible route to addressing it that doesn't involve reducing fossil emissions.
The only thing that matters is preventing extraction of fossil fuels in the first place.
That's why the fossil fuel industry promoted the idea of "carbon footprints", and why Adtech make their datacenters renewable - greenwashing their business that makes money selling the whole economy of fossil-fuel derived stuff, including flights and the fossil fuel industry's actual propaganda[1][2].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
[1] https://www.clientearth.org/projects/the-greenwashing-files/
You can fly an airplane on non-fossil fuels.
As the original commenter also said: He'd rather focus on earning money than saving a bit. Maybe that opinion translates to the climate debate?
Maybe he wants to produce large amounts of energy with limited externalities instead of saving a bit.
Not at the scale of commercial airlines though and certainly not (yet) as cheaply.
Also, it is interesting to see, that you think it is more practical to eliminate air travel, than to employ new techniques to allow air travel while being climate neutral.
The climate morality debate is complicated because it's all statistical. "Drown Bangladesh and Florida" is obviously a wrong outcome, but there's no one individual wrong action that leads there. You could come up with an approximation like "each gallon of jet fuel consumed raises the sea level by one femtometre"; each action is individually trivial, but combined they are not trivial.
I think nobody disagrees. Your entire comment is rhetoric handcuffing. Nobody proposed to let "Bangladesh and Florida drown".
We are discussing ways to avoid current path of climate change which can involve other means than reducing mobility.
Unfortunately a lot of people are set on an extremely narrow path, which is a moral issue. How are you going to explain to third world countries that you do not think they have the right to prosper like the US did?
In the end, it is morally wrong to be single minded on the solution to the issues. We need to consider other means. Let the means compete and pick the best way.
No, the hard part is that we just can't do the obvious, because there is no one global government that could mandate it. Instead, everyone at every level - individual, corporate, governmental - is better off short-term by not doing any climate mitigation, because those who do will lose business to those who don't.
Or am I missing something?
The discourse on qualifying different forms of fuels is way more confusing.
It is also dangerous. If we allow marketing of "net-zero" fuels, fossil fuel companies will offset their fuel with CO2 certificates.