[nickik]

I don't agree. While electric plains maybe in the future, carbon based fuels will continue to be a requirement for a long time.

Eventually we can move to produced carbon based fuel but that will take a while.

Until then, the old green idea of 'lets just not do it' is simply not viable to reduce carbon usage.

[worldsayshi]

> lets just not do it

I don't see why this is any less viable than the other alternatives. It's the only option that we've already tried. Before invention of air travel.

I mean of course I see that people don't change. But that's the very thing we absolutely need to fix. We have to stay within our means. Not doing the thing that brings cost seems like a simple enough solution.

[firethief]

If not having commercial supersonic flight isn't viable, quodlibet.

[nickik]

Its not viable to stop the world from using technology and use it just because it goes against your personal preference.

[worldsayshi]

Until we have better technology we have to scale down or reliance on unsustainable tech. The alternative is adverse degradation of our most sophisticated technology available - the biosphere.

[ericd]

Yeah, see, saying “let’s all stop doing this thing” where the thing has diffuse long term bad effects for everyone but short term benefits for the person that does it generally doesn’t work. People have been trying that for a long time. It has to be written into law, or the benefits (economic or otherwise) need to be tilted toward doing the right thing.

I think a large carbon tax is the only shot of getting everyone on track with reducing impact.

[worldsayshi]

Yes. No disagreement here. We absolutely need to put it into law. Although, making such legislation happen doesn't seem to work either. But we need to make it so.