This comment makes no sense because it doesn't state how many people get electricity and how many people fly.
The carbon footprint of one transatlantic flight is on the same order of magnitude as one person's yearly electricity consumption.
People who fly every year can substantially reduce their carbon footprint by not flying, people who already don't fly every year (the majority of the population) can't.
The climate system itself doesn't, but the total carbon budget has to be allocated to and split between 7 billion people one way or another.
What is a fair split?
Of course, if you want to keep flying at 800 km/h around the globe AND get power for your home's computers and 4k TV, you will have to advocate for cutting electricity AND blocking air transport of some other people until their coal plants are powered with solar panels. It's your right to decide so, but you have to admit it that it's unethical.
This is a reasonable question to ask, although it's also a terribly wrong assumption.
First the ship has already sailed for most of Asia, where the fertility rate is already below 2 or near 2, and the billions extra are just from people getting older. China's population for instance is already expected to decrease from 2030-2035. Asking from these countries to reduce their population is equivalent to asking them to reduce their life expectancy.
In central Africa, the fertility rate is still very high, indeed. But now, remember we are talking about splitting carbon emissions? They already don't emit any carbon. Reducing the fertility rate would still be a good idea, for other reasons (they will be the most impacted by climate change-related disasters for instance).
If 100 million people fly and contribute 2.5% of emissions, and 7 billion people contribute 25% of the omissions are using coal generated electricity, which probably should you solve?
I think it's obviously absurd to expect people to agree on "fairness" and tying it to doing something about global warming seems like a malicious way to prevent doing anything. You're saying that all ethical problems have to be solved before saving the current imperfect world.
If you like capitalism and fear "socialism" (which I assume anyone needling people about "fairness" this way does) then that is what allocates resources given constraints of the real world. Accepting that one of the constraints is a limitation on burning fossil fuels for the entire globe does not require changes to society beyond normal responses to price signals. Nor decisions by some authority, other than the overall cap.
Figuring out who gives up what from a central command is both impossible and unnecessary, so it shouldn't be part of the discussion. What "socialists" even advocate Soviet style central planning anymore?
The carbon footprint of one transatlantic flight is on the same order of magnitude as one person's yearly electricity consumption.
People who fly every year can substantially reduce their carbon footprint by not flying, people who already don't fly every year (the majority of the population) can't.