Post #4307359

@sarahdalgulls@ecoevo.social Boosting somewhat grudgingly. "Carbon footprints" are a term invented by the fossil fuel industry to blame shift and we need to bear in mind the systemic issues. As the video says, flying is sadly often the cheapest option for a given journey. And most decisions are made on the basis of cost. Short term, we need a frequent flyer tax. 70% of journeys are taken by the 15% of people who fly 3 times a year or more. We also need to start reducing the capacity of airports, as opposed to building ever more runways, which is the current (or at least the previous) government's policy. Technology isn't going to save the "right" to fly: even if you ignore contrails, synthetic fuel based on food waste is a very limited resource, while e-fuels are likely to be very expensive for the foreseeable future. And then we need to consider who actually needs to fly. What little non-fossil fuel we have available will be needed for air ambulances, search and rescue, essential diplomatic missions... after that, maybe people who have close relatives abroad. That's the part where it gets into tricky intersectional issues: I've always been able to get the train to see my parents. That option isn't available if they're on another continent. And business travel isn't a good reason for aviation expansion either. It's been flat since the early 2000's. The case for airport expansion is always based on "growth", but the fact is most flights from the UK are tourists going to spend their money somewhere cheaper. Even looking at private jets (which should be banned or at least heavily taxed), most flights are for leisure. Airport expansion actually costs the economy money directly, before you even start to look at the effect of carbon emissions and other forms of pollution. So sure, I don't fly. I don't drive either; I've been lucky, or foolish, enough not to need to. But lifestyle choices only get us so far; we need system change.