• mindfive@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Arguing semantics? All flights are equal? A loaded a380 is just like a 6 passenger Lear?

    If we argue that someone should take the bus or bike instead of drive, isn’t this the same argument?

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      No, because the intent is to reduce aggregate demand. One person’s life choices are completely irrelevant, but when you spread ideas like ride-sharing, public transport, and walking/biking, the goal is for many people to choose one or more of those options regularly.

      Long after we have carbon taxes, planes will still be flying.

      Do the math on one person flying alone on a Lear jet while running a lawnmower for fun just to pollute a little extra, vs 6 million other people taking 100,000 flights. Or don’t, because the math should be quite obvious.

      • mindfive@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not one person though, there are more private jets than commercial airliners. This thread started with the declaration that taking needless private flights over the Atlantic is negligible and we shouldn’t bother expressing frustration or ire that they continue.

        I never said we should stop flights, just that we can criticize irresponsible usage of it. Why is that such a sticking point here?

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Because that argument only exists, only ever existed, to chip away at the credibility of wealthy people who are putting actual effort into fighting climate change