Ok, say we somehow cut air travel by 50% overnight. Seems unlikely, but we did it.
Would you advocate to not pursue this approach to mitigating the remaining 50%?
Check out other comment. It could actually end up causing more warming in the long term depending on the net change in fuel use or extra maintenance on plane etc.
The required changes are typically minimal. A little bit of altitude up or down, a minimal detour. Also mentioned in other comments (and in the article).
Isn’t that the purpose of running a study? To establish that a theory works and could be beneficial at scale?
This exactly.
Yes.
I read somewhere that 90% of human never took a plane.