It's discouraging when climate activists defend frequent flying. Flying represents fossil-fueled privilege and the continuation of business-as-usual. In other words, the opposite of emergency mode.
Flying is an activity engaged in by the global rich, and frequent flying even more so. Defending flying sends a signal, in the incredibly strong language of social norms, that we're not really in an emergency. But we absolutely are.
Yes, there are sectors with bigger emissions. But if flying were a country, it would be the 5th or 6th largest emitter.
China
US
India
Russia
(Japan maybe)
Flying
...
And crucially, flying is not strictly necessary. Not like eating.
China
US
India
Russia
(Japan maybe)
Flying
...
And crucially, flying is not strictly necessary. Not like eating.
Instead of defending their frequent flying, it would be better for these activists to push for policies to ramp down flying - along with other emissions sources. We must prioritize ending the easiest-to-end sources ASAP.
Finally, note that I haven't said anyone should stop traveling. If it's important enough to fly to during a running-away climate emergency, then it's important enough to spend a few days to travel to. And push for systems change to make this easier, logistically and socially.
I guess I'll add one more thing. Once you understand what a serious emergency we're in, and how deadly fossil fuels are, I think at least part of you simply doesn't want to fly anymore. Not because it will magically solve things, but because it no longer feels good.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
