Yes, I think that's exactly the point. On other issues, many campaigners have rightly learned *not* to over-emphasize persuasion of educated climate-aware audiences, because this would miss the broader emitting populations. But for aviation, I think this is our target.
-
-
Replying to @flyingless @cityatlas and
This is great convo. I do wonder how flight distribution maps with wealth distribution and worry that it’s just an artefact of wealth inequality. Target the 8% but find that it isn’t low hanging fruit because you’re asking them to act less wealthy.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @DaddyD0dd @flyingless and
Or to be less wealthy because their job involves flying every week. Meanwhile, one interesting read, via
@VictoriaHurth https://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/10026.1/4312/V%20Hurth%20Creating%20Sustainable%20Identities%20revision%20pre%20publication%20version.pdf;sequence=1 …pic.twitter.com/zHsi0RI692
1 reply 2 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @cityatlas @DaddyD0dd and
And another, via Doug McAdam at Stanford: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0rWjVMvjHb0RmdYeHhHX2ZWMW8/view?usp=sharing …pic.twitter.com/16I8n345ZA
3 replies 2 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @cityatlas @flyingless and
Well if you want people to be angry in the right direction, it is best not to be seen to blame them for climate change. And telling people to fly less is frought with that problem. Nobody flies for fun. They fly because the alternatives are crap.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DaddyD0dd @cityatlas and
There is a significant difference between the statements "eat less meat" and "fly less" in terms of what you're asking people to give up and why. For me and I'm sure most people, "fly less" means "see your family less" or "find a new job".
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DaddyD0dd @flyingless and
Climate change is a bigger threat to families & jobs. That's the box. The reason flying gets singled out is two factors: the extraordinarily high per trip emissions, and the lack of a way to decarbonize it. For business, videoconference should substitute as much as possible...
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cityatlas @flyingless and
It can be decarbonized though. It's just expensive now. Or there could be an electric powered blimp option, for "slower travel". At least then you could tell people they have an alternative to flying a jet. Then they're actually choosing the more polluting option to fly jets.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DaddyD0dd @flyingless and
Make the ships crossing the Atlantic nice enough, and people will go back to them - with a few other tweaks, like sabbaticals or 3 month vacations. Run the ships on nuclear, as navy does, or RE-produced fuel, & they're carbon free. Here's Bowie on the QE2. https://www.cruiselinehistory.com/david-bowie-walt-disney-and-elizabeth-taylor-were-regulars-on-the-cunard-line-which-celebrates-its-184th-year-of-sailing-the-atlantic-today/ …pic.twitter.com/TXG0er0NRu
3 replies 2 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @cityatlas @DaddyD0dd and
Aarne Granlund Retweeted Aarne Granlund
You are a marketing person. I wish this would be cleared by that. Someone put a Lomborg 3°C growth is great edit in the biggest newspaper
@hsfi recently while I was reading a Facebook post of an Italian person whose area got obliterated by this.https://twitter.com/aarneclimate/status/1057210727096815616?s=21 …Aarne Granlund added,
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes
What motivates Lomborg at this point is a mystery.
Today's eerie experience: looking out the window and noticing flames from #CampFire, on the news on a neighbor's giant TV.
-
-
Replying to @cityatlas @AarneClimate and
I woke up to wind and smoke this morning in Northern California. First, I heard the wind and thought, "This can't be good." Well, it isn't. I can't imagine what 3° of warming would be like.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 1 more reply
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.