Bad news: this generally wasn't counted before and when counted roughly doubles the impact so in some senses you're back to where you started.
But it's a much lower hanging fruit than anything else and as yet we're not doing it.
As a simple matter, it keeps my city clean - we all put garbage in the bins (yes there's a law, but no way could it be enforced if the great majority of people didn't do it already). More dramatically and recently, the protests in India.
> society
Society is us - you, me, everyone. Nobody else is coming to help us.
I'm responsible for what I do, for the consequences of my actions. It's embarassing to say it's someone else's job (especially when the someone else is 'society'), and therefore I'm not going to do anything.
That term lacks all credibility - it's just a weak attack based on mind-reading - and is a signal itself.
Most people actually want do good - humans naturally are very social and want to do well for the group - and without prioritizing signaling. How sad that some are so politically driven by reactionary politics that their contribution is to snipe at others.
I disagree. There's coherent economic theory about how costly actions can be used to provide credible signals. It's been used in a wide variety of disciplines including biology (peacock's tails). No mind-reading is needed. I understand that sometimes it is used by right-wingers to attack left-wing positions. My comment wasn't driven by reactionary politics, and my point was to encourage people to think about what actually does well for the group - which, at the risk of repeating myself, is about minimizing the cost for a given level of benefit.
To describe something in the real world, you need objective evidence, in this case of someone's motive - or there's always mind-reading.
In the UK there is air passenger duty which is for example £102 per passenger on economy seats to the US. I think they are reluctant to raise it too much incase business shifts elsewhere.
I'm seeing it from both sides of the isles that people are being fed up with the overlords.
But currently the zillionaire tantrums control the future so you're right.
Zoom beats Boom.
Since the global South will suffer the most from climate change, they might disagree with developed nations ‘subsiding’ flights.
I live on an island, and it's literally only now, in my late forties that I'm earning the kind of money that allows me to travel moderately. If you tire of the privilege, feel free not to. For me it's perhaps the one aspect of modernity that unarguably better than the past, the thing we get in return for global homogeneity.
You think people resent the rich now? Imagine how resentment would grow under an enforced localism. Imagine how much bigotry would increase.
Cosmopolitanism is real! People who travel are more tolerant, less supportive of war, and better informed. The world isn't a virtuality to them, it's a set of places they have visited or may visit. Peoples they've known or may yet know.
Did Berlin to Nessau through small routes: wonderful. Berlin to Prague? Stellar, if long. Berlin to Munich? Amazing all 4-5 times, unless they forget to stock up on soft pretzels.
The addicts cannot? Or who cannot? Anyone with money cannot?
Homo fricking economicus for you alright.