A logical error in this climate change shouting match
Start by agreeing with the base contention - emissions are causing climate change, something needs to be done about it all. No, just start here as a basis for the argumentation.
Does this mean that all activities should be reducing their emissions?
“It’s clear that we need to demand reduction via a frequent flyer levy, which would discourage the frequent flying by a small group of people which makes up the bulk of emissions from planes.”
Air travel accounted for 2.1% of human-produced carbon dioxide emissions in 2019, equivalent to about 915m tonnes, according to the Air Transport Action Group. It is estimated that 15% of people take 70% of all flights, Possible says.
2% of the problem isn’t in fact a large part of the problem. It is, in fact, one-fitieth of it. Possibly not worth the attention paid to this very minor part in fact.
But very much more than that there’s the logical error of trying to insist that if emissions must fall by 50% (or 90%, or emissions subtraction technology must be used, what that overall target is does not matter here) overall then emissions from each and every activity or sector must also fall by 50%.
It’s not just that this is not true it’s that it is stupid.
Each unit of emissions has the same impact upon climate - again, whatever we think that effect is. But each activity that causes a unit of emissions produces a different amount of value, of human utility. So, we desire to reduce those emissions that create little to no human utility while retaining those which produce more than their ill effects.
Given the British climate that week in Torremolinos produces great human utility. Which is why people already, willingly, pay the Air Passenger Duty (which is indeed a carbon tax at or perhaps even above the social cost of carbon) to have it.
Our aim is to maximise human utility over time while also not broiling Flipper on the fumes of the last ice floe. Simply by observing what people do emissions from flights are the last, not the first, thing to be tackled.
More importantly for the logic here it just is not true that each source of emissions must reduce at the same - or even any - rate. Those emissions that produce the least value should go first, those the most the last.
As it happens we think that aviation is going to get solved an entirely different way. The renewables to green hydrogen to synthfuel route has promise. The current infrastructure and activities using it would thereby be carbon neutral. Which we think would be a double victory. Solving the climate change impact while preserving maximal human utility has its attractions. But right royally annoying all those who would impose sumptuary laws is even better.