3% is a pretty big reduction for such a simple thing...
> You think getting rid of aviation is a simple thing?
That's not what was suggested, initially. Just the private jets. Then there have been some numbers thrown around, so it's not clear where the 3% comes from (1/2 of 7%?). Kneejerk opposition by taking the least charitable interpretation, is not constructive. One point is that something measurable, is action in the right direction, rather than whataboutism...even if it's only marginally effective, it's a mindset change for the following generations. Policies that are easy to understand (like banning personal jets) are more likely to be enacted than complicated carbon capture laws. That's another point being made.
Notice, it's a very common occurrence. People note that something posted is inaccurate, in their own personal interpretation. It's usually not directed at them, but there's a need to correct the posted because of their personal interpretation (re: xkcd Duty Calls). This is not to say, I've never been guilty of this (maybe this post is a great example). Sometimes I want to argue. Sometimes I want to explore my own beliefs, given another person's position, and get it recorded somewhere. That being said, I can recognize that it's not constructive for the conversation at hand and I'm trying to do better, while still growing my own understanding.