• Ilandar
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Also not really sure why you say aviation has a relatively negligible impact when your own link says otherwise?

    Do you understand the meaning of the word “relatively”?

    5% is negligible when you consider that a) this is the total impact of all aviation - not just “billionaires and millionaires” and private aviation which would be an even lower percentage and b) it is a significantly lower figure than that of other contributors, such as livestock, which has been estimated at 15% or even higher. And while we’re on the topic of livestock, I notice that you conveniently didn’t mention diet at all even though it is something that the “every man” can address right now.

    • Whirlybird
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I do, but 5% is not relatively small in any meaning of the word when it comes to things that contribute to climate change.

      • Ilandar
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It is small relative to the size of other contributions.

        You claimed that the problem of climate change can be “basically solved” by preventing billionaires and millionaires from flying on private jets. You are either suggesting a total emissions reduction of <5% is satisfactory, in which case you would be a) wrong and b) admitting that the global contribution from aviation is indeed relatively negligible, or you are suggesting that the 5% figure is wrong and aviation in fact makes up a much higher percentage of global emissions in which case you are also wrong.