[Aachen]

> Small-aircraft GA is a vanishingly small fraction of total fossil fuel use

OP wrote: "We want people who don’t think about airplanes as a mode of transportation to start flying"

They're meaning for this to become a larger fraction, besides that the relevant measure is pollution per benefit or per capita or something rather than absolute amount of pollution

[lutorm]

So you're concluding that there is no benefit to general aviation because, presumably, you don't fly?

I think we should absolutely keep airplanes as a mode of transportation, because the alternative is that all small airports go away and then it won't matter when renewable fuels become a reality because there will be no longer be anywhere to land and take off. Those airports would not come back.

[Aachen]

> because, presumably, you don't fly?

First off, you've got this backwards. One doesn't have an opinion because one flies or not; conversely, one flies or not because one concludes their situation does or does not warrant the pollution for a particular destination

But equally weird, why are you making this about me personally? If I say I don't fly, that's probably unusual where you're from so I'll be the environmentalist out-group whose opinion is too extreme and can be dismissed. If I do I'll be considered a hypocrite (like what you called someone in the other thread). I can tell you the answer is a middle ground but I don't think it helps anyone here to make this about me. I'd much rather make this about facts and science rather than opinions and feelings

> I think we should absolutely keep airplanes as a mode of transportation

I agree, but since nobody said anything to the contrary, that seems like a given