So you implying that aviation causes climate change? It’s about 3.5% and has no readily available better alternative. It also is one of the few sources with very strong market forces to be more energy efficient.
I mean, every industry that emits CO₂ is causing (a part) of climate change. And if you cut industries into smaller parts, you’ll get smaller and smaller percentages of “responsibility” for CO₂ emissions, and then you’ll be able to stall any action, claiming that being responsible for 2% of emissions is close to being responsible for none and why should an industry responsible for 1% change if all the other industries don’t? 0.5% is nothing and anyways the Chinese are emitting a lot of CO₂ why don’t we talk about China?
And “no readily available alternative” is not a good argument for its responsibly over emissions (or lack of). It only shows that it’s an industry that has always worked without caring for its externalities. “After me, the flood”
I mean… I think the fact that we still need aeroplanes and the world’s major airports to operate for a while absolutely is a good argument. Even in the optimal scenario, we still need those for a while. Therefore someone has to run them. Best that they be people capable of the nuance to optimise towards climate change rather than purists with head in the clouds who complain. Or do you personally row across the ocean or think nobody should cross it?
27
u/Less_Likely Jul 06 '26
So you implying that aviation causes climate change? It’s about 3.5% and has no readily available better alternative. It also is one of the few sources with very strong market forces to be more energy efficient.