Some interesting, and varied opinions in the mix.
Here are mine:
"Though it is obviously (oh boy, is it ever) still up for debate, I personally believe that whatever 'we' are doing as an ever-growing global population, the consequences of our existences, rich or poor, are not helping halt the negative aspects of climate change.
Closer to home, and this discussion, I also believe that air travel emissions are quite high on the list of probable causes and need addressing.
A while ago I caught the tail end of yet another academo/journalistic spat about climate warming - http://www.desmogblog.com/a-tart-counterpoint-to-ibbitsons-irrelevance - and would just like to share this:
"[You are] flying on holiday and the plane is ½ hour out over the Atlantic. Of 150 aerospace engineers on board, 90 say that there's been a fuel leak and the plane has 40 minutes of flying time left. It's time to turn around. The other 60 say that there's no conclusive evidence of a leak and [you] should not turn around because it would inconvenience the CEOs in business class."
The conclusion is also worth sharing: '[The] debate is about risk, not certainty. [We] might choose to listen when more than half the experts are warning of a problem that threatens our entire species'.
Asking who flies where how often is obviously fun when the 'greener than thous' get on their specific and saintly hobby horses, but really doesn't address the bigger picture. Yet, of those on board (sorry) with the notion that it's a problem requiring a solution, we still seem to be circling (sorry again:)) around what to do.
I don't really understand all these trading schemes very well, and have my suspicions that they will just create a whole new breed of very rich folk who will be able to afford to fly around discussing what they are trading. And on a personal holidaymaker basis, I am equally not sure that whacking another fir tree in the Gobi to make up for a stag trip to Rimini is going to help much either.
Both simply seem to be trying to buy off our guilt and/or the consequences of demanding our right to go where, when and as often as we please, simply because we can.
Plus these solutions all seem potentially so socially divisive on top of the eco-consequences, as it will inevitably be those with the dosh who get to make the trips if it boils down to just money.
As a small suggestion, I'd advocate some form of individual quota system, where you're allowed a certain number of airmiles per annum per person.
You want to do more, you can trade with those who don't need or want them (so all those business types on a jolly will need to get them off a some poor eskimo whose igloo has just melted).
This does of course simplistically ignore a few global societal imbalances (if every Chinese agri-worker or bushman in the Kalahari gets the right to 10k airmiles, the planet would be toast in a week), economic realities (just where exactly are all those who depend on the current - let alone proposed - levels of air travel going to be reassigned?) and remarkably optimistic hopes of planetary cooperation in the spirit of self-preservation over self-interest, but then that's what politicians are for, isn't it?
But a start (to stopping - 50 airports' worth taking off from a 'soon to be affluent enough to afford it' China is a... concern) needs to be made.
This at least is an attempt. A tad unilateral. Fraught with inequalities and impracticailties for sure, but better than doing nothing.
I am prepared to hold my breath, and just hope there's a resolution before I really have to... for good."
