• quirzle@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think the point he’s making is that our second bullet of your list would make the third bullet unnecessary.

    • bossito@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s some redundancy, but a ban solves the issue instantly and also creates a strong incentive for better ground transport.

      • quirzle@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Fair enough; I wasn’t commenting on the idea one way or another, just trying to clarify what I thought the other commenter meant.

        Personally, I’m almost never in favor of a ban. I’d rather tax heavily and use the income for programs to offset. I’m 20 years removed from optimism about reducing emissions, so I think we should be leaning into technology that can actively pull stuff out of the atmosphere. That could create an incentive to move away from flying but also use the flying that’s still happening to fund figuring out how to reverse the damage that’s already been done.