Yes. By all means . Let's stop flying. Let's kill the tourism industry as one example of this misguided “flying is evil" push, across America and in foreign countries. And what about all the millions of people that make their living off of tourism? Too bad, I guess the answer will be.

This is another ridiculous idea being pushed by a Palo Alto resident, who thinks that they know what is best for everyone.
You think flying is evil- then don't fly. But stops lecturing everyone on what is right or wrong.

Flying is "bad" but will be one of the last areas of concern to ba addressed with technological solutions.

Just curious, @bloviating, when did you accept that climate change is a very serious problem?

What solutions do you support?

Globally, aviation is 2.4% of CO2. Not great, but not the largest source by far.

Aviation has some low hanging fruit that really would help, too. Moving short haul flights to turboprops, for example, can result in a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. This doesn't meaningfully reduce comfort, safety or convenience, or increase costs. However, people are reluctant to fly on turboprops without the right incentives.

This is where alignment of incentives comes in. Aviation is a great argument for a carbon tax. Let people make their own tradeoffs, instead of trying to regulate each source. Let the market push efficiencies by making the lack of efficiency more expensive. From an equity POV, this would also be a bigger hit on more expensive classes of seating - International Business has a much higher carbon footprint than Premium Economy, which is somewhat higher than Economy.

But... let's quit screwing around with feel-good solutions to small parts of the problem, tax carbon in a way that lets market solutions to problems work, and call it a day.

Sammy- about 10 years ago.

Telling people not to fly ( without any consideration of all the impacts ) is like the virtue signallers in Palo Alto saying everyone should bike and walk.

"So I see no point on being dogmatic on this point." Then Sherry goes on to say that she will post some information on the impact of flying, choosing and offsetting flights, and aviation and technology. She even flies and may well do so more in the future. Doesn't sound like she is saying "Yes by all means let's stop flying." Chill, guys, open your minds, and read the next three posts.

@MP: Yes, it would be so much simpler if all of this climate impact were just folded into prices. (Similarly, wouldn’t it be nice if manufacturers had to charge for the true costs of recycling and/or disposing of their products?) But effective carbon pricing is easier said than done, not just the technicalities (e.g., getting an import tax to pass muster with the WTO) and the format (e.g., when does the price increase and by how much), but also haggling over formulas (e.g., for non-CO2 impact) and exemptions. Not to mention getting Congress to agree on anything. The ones that do pass are often too weak to effect real change. Given all that, some of these other approaches (e.g, encouraging people to do their part, or implementing the CORSIA program) can help us make progress faster. Alas, you know you’re in trouble when asking people to change their behavior is one of your better options.

I would like to see the carbon footprint of the container ships that carry "recyclables" and manufactured goods and food around the world. Do we need meat and dairy from Ireland and New Zealand? Would it not be "better" to manufacture the things in place and reuse them locally?
But, trade agreements probably trump science.
Disclaimer: I frequently fly commercially for business and leisure.
It seems that airlines support the local economies by purchasing refreshments, utensils and amenity kits and by patronizing hotels and restaurants. They also pay landing and fuel fees. This is away from the author's point but shows an offset.

@Robyn, those are great questions. FWIW, on a global scale, the carbon footprint from food has only a very small contribution from transportation. See picture below (transport is in red), but you can see it much more easily in the original. That doesn't clarify whether that means most food is local, or that transport is relatively low in emissions. But they go on to say that shipping isn't bad, and give this example: "Shipping one kilogram of avocados from Mexico to the United Kingdom would generate 0.21kg CO2eq in transport emissions. This is only around 8% of avocados’ total footprint." From what I read, eating less meat and cheese (and especially beef and lamb) is the big winner here (plus a few other things, like farmed shrimp).



I don't understand the airline business too well, but I do understand that our governments subsidize the industry and the airports. I don't know how it all balances out, though. Their fees and taxes are not really offsets, because that revenue is not used to address their climate impact. There is a program called CORSIA that is coming, though, which I'll write about in a few posts...

Hope this helps some, and thanks for the great comments/observations.