[blueski]

Thanks for putting this together! I've wondered before if Kittyhawk and other flying car companies count as climate-saving organizations. Flying small personal aircraft will always use vastly more energy per mile than vehicles that can roll along the ground - and even if there are no emissions in flight, the energy cost and likely emissions of making the batteries and equipment will be non-negligible.

[bloudermilk]

My personal opinion is that we're not going to convince people to stop flying, so we should decarbonize air travel regardless of its relative efficiency.

[blueski]

But my understanding is that Kittyhawk etc are (at least in part) creating a new market of single-person "quick hops" within cities or metropolitan areas, displacing ground transport. Not only would this increase energy use per mile for existing trips, it could lead to a lot of new ones (e.g. making it viable to commute from far flung locations). This ramp in energy use for personal convenience seems problematic.

[Angostura]

We don't have to convice everyone to stop flying. We can start with to convincing everyone to fly less. Decarbonise in the meantime, if you can, of course.

[tensor]

I don't think this is a very practical approach. People both need and want to fly places. We need to accept that and find ways to make flight greener.

[pimmen]

But the richest 10% of people are the ones who make far more than half of all flights [1]. They could certainly fly less.

[1] https://www.inequalityintransport.org.uk/book-author/news-bl...