[s1artibartfast]

Most people don't apply your reasoning to any other moral question. Nobody thinks that killing a child is OK because it has little impact on the grand total of child deaths. They don't rationalize that some warlord in Africa will keep killing, even if they don't.

How is this any different? You are either part of the solution or part of the problem, and accountable for your actions.

My point is that the contribution to climate change is exactly proportional to your personal emissions devised by the the total.

You talk about policy Solutions, but how is that any different than personal action?

[birksherty]

Killing is heinous act giving unparalleled suffering to others, that starts right at the moment, to many related person. Not same as one person doing nothing to reduce climate change. You are comparing apples to sky.

[s1artibartfast]

That firmly establishes that killing is very bad and faster. What it doesn't do is make an argument it is moral to emit large amounts of carbon that will also hurt people (but more slowly) just because other people are doing it too.

[ffsm8]

But that was the point: a person flying around the globe every week will not impact the climate significantly, even if thousands of people did the same. You're not going to achieve anything without global regulation, so trying to shame individuals is just pointless.

Wherever they're boomers or not.