Per person, it is reliably the single most polluting thing you will do. The reason it accounts for a "small proportion" of emissions is that most people in the world do not fly at all. Indeed, a tiny (<1% IIRC) elite of the world's population account for most of the world's flight kilometers. Flying is an absolutely unscalable form of transport in a world of 8 billion people.

It only represents a small portion of emissions because so few people fly. For the people that do fly it represents a large portion of their emissions.

It’s also the activity least likely to be decarbonised.

Of course there are alternatives, I haven’t flown on a plane since 2001.

There are plenty of alternatives. Most importantly: traveling locally. Nobody needs to visit 30 countries by 30 years old or whatever dumb social media excuses they have.

Air travel is a very recent modern invention(1960s, at least for everyday folk) and people act like flying around the world is a right.

Modern capitalism is an excess machine and it'll feed us constant excuses for why our reasons are valid. Air travel is a great example. Travel and tourism are seen as "musts" by people nowadays. It's insane how destructive and unnecessary it is. It's wild how entitled everyone is nowadays. I'll happily take down votes for calling out the insane excess that we have nowadays. We're killing ourselves one funco pop at a time and we all deserve that funco pop according to the latest excuse(won't someone blame the rich!!!)

I think if high speed rail was a viable option in the US and Europe those numbers would look a lot different.

What?? In Europe there are lots of viable alternatives. Same as Asia!!

The issue is that we are enabling people to travel long distances too cheaply.

and according to the article the last record was 200k planes per day on june 29 2025, while july 23rd had more than 280k - so while efficiency may be going up (how many of those 280k planes are in the modern 100-120mpg range?) total flights are as well. Result: total emissions are steadily increasing.

> People who complain about aviation do more harm than good.

I find this a bit hard to swallow. It speaks to a sense of impunity wrt emissions for a demographic that very arguably drives much of the rest of the way energy is consumed. It is one of many choice this demographic has the privelage of making, in contrast to much of the rest of the population.

Have you ever met a coal or oil exec who was shy about flying? If anything, the latter would no doubt lobby hard against efforts to reign in flights, as it's directly tied to the interests of their industry.

I guess the suggestion is to not travel at all. How much of all air travel is for fun and leisure?

I recently read Days of Rage about the various groups committing political violence during the 60s and 70s. Weatherman, Black Panthers, Black Liberation Army, etc.

I don't know if there was really a 'message' more than just reporting what 'happened'. But, I have to say I came away with the idea that that kind of political violence is futile. Non-violent political action seemed to have MUCH more beneficial action than any bomb. (of course it wasn't as clear-cut between non-violent groups and revolutionary groups at the time)

Maybe thats only because I just read the ONE book.

That is a terrible way to get the necessary support for climate action and would be actively harmful to the cause.

This argument has been made so often and in so much detail that I’m surprised to still see people suggest climate terrorism in, presumably, good faith.