As the article says, "air travel accounts for about 2.5 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions". It is responsible for ~5% of climate change, according to the IPCC. If we build a lot of nuclear power plants, we can still eat steak and fly all we want. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/climate/air-travel-emissions.html …
The "carbon budget within decades" is not the same as the share of emissions they're talking about today. It refers to a capped budget. The conclusion I draw is that aviation right now is not a meaningful contributor to climate change, and we should focus on the big stuff first.
-
-
Is the strawman that someone is claiming we should reduce aviation emissions before we address transport, agriculture or electricity? It can be easy to say stuff rich people do doesn't matter because there's fewer of us, in the hope that the world's middle class never grows.
-
My point is that the climate situation is an emergency and that if you want to treat it as such, you have to focus on the actual major contributors. It's like telling someone with crippling medical bills to stop going to the cinema to save money
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.