飛行機に乗る必要のある人はいない？飛び恥運動と緊急事態フッティング

Stay Grounded Network @StayGroundedNet

Why Flying Like Before Covid Is A Really Bad Idea Reason 1: Flights are very bad for your climate footprint. 🌎👣 Buying 2nd hand, going vegan, driving less are all important - but 1 flight can release more emissions than you can save with all of this. stay-grounded.org/10-reasons-why…

Stay Grounded Network @StayGroundedNet

Why Flying Like Before Covid Is A Really Bad Idea Reason 2: Flying is the fastest way to climate breakdown. 🔥🌏 Due to other pollution than CO2 taking place at altitude, the total impact of flights is on average 3 times the effect of the emitted CO2. ▶️stay-grounded.org/10-reasons-why… pic.twitter.com/bWAdAKPipX

Stay Grounded Network @StayGroundedNet

Why Flying Like Before Covid Is A Really Bad Idea Reason 3: Air traffic is extremely unjust. ⚖️💸 Just one 1% of the world’s population causes more than half of all air traffic emissions. ▶️stay-grounded.org/10-reasons-why… pic.twitter.com/bgbLfIarFm

Stay Grounded Network @StayGroundedNet

The carbon removal delusion Today it costs about $800 to remove a ton of CO₂ permanently. United Airlines emits about 34 million tons of CO₂ a year. Removing that much carbon would cost about $27 billion a year, roughly United’s gross profits last year. theatlantic.com/science/archiv…

Stay Grounded Network @StayGroundedNet

Even more egregious, United Airlines is investing in the fossil fuel industry with this carbon removal project. The airline is thus contributing to maintaining the fossil fuel system in addition to its own business. pic.twitter.com/h4bhWwult3

Peter Kalmus @ClimateHuman

Because no one actually needs to fly. Commercial aviation is a convenience for the global rich. Until people are even willing to reduce flights (a low bar) we are unlikely to make progress. Your number is on the low side there too btw twitter.com/em_umoh/status…

Peter Kalmus @ClimateHuman

I know very few people are on board with this yet. But as climate breakdown progresses, and more and more people start dying in heatwaves, famines, and storms, and abandoning coastal areas, more people will start to agree with me.

Peter Kalmus @ClimateHuman

People often assume being against commercial aviation means that I am against travel, which is absolutely incorrect. I love travel. Because there are other modes of travel, they are just less convenient. What will be less convenient still is a deeply climate-broken planet.

Peter Kalmus @ClimateHuman

Defending flying reveals a desire for things not to change - for us to stop climate breakdown while keeping society and our lives the same. And I get that. And it may have worked if it was still 1990. But the rates of change needed now are... large.

Peter Kalmus @ClimateHuman

It is not a privileged "take" to say "we should fly less in a climate emergency." On the contrary, I renounce a huge amount of privilege by not flying. And I do have far-flung loved ones. Also, flying is mainly consumed by the global rich, mostly in the Global North.

Peter Kalmus @ClimateHuman

We should see flying as incredibly precious, and we should recognize the climate damage it really does do when we partake in it. Everyone should *want* to fly less! Burning fossil fuel is causing irreversible harm to our planet and the number of people it kills is increasing fast

Peter Kalmus @ClimateHuman

To defend flying is essentially to defend climate inaction. One of the big barriers to action is a lack of collective agreement that we are genuinely in an emergency. For me, how much we fly - and defend flying - is a social litmus test on how much we accept it's an emergency.

Peter Kalmus @ClimateHuman

We need to change the social license of fossil fuel. The stuff is literally deadly. I think we all get that, intellectually, but it's hard to let that really percolate emotionally and change how we behave. Anyway, I hope they do make long-range electric planes soon!!

Peter Kalmus @ClimateHuman

It may also help to understand my "theory of change." I think we to get rapid collective action via policies requires a public sense of emergency, which by definition means willingness to leave the status quo. I see flying less as a leverage point for moving toward that.

Peter Kalmus @ClimateHuman

In other words, I am trying to accelerate collective action by dislodging our old ways of thinking (and accepting) fossil fuel in our lives.

Peter Kalmus @ClimateHuman

It is time to fly less, both for the sake of pandemic and for global heating. People will obvs. keep flying even if their lives are at risk, so this can only work at a systems level e.g. through a climate income (which would boost jet fuel costs) and flight rationing. pic.twitter.com/Rc6gM8SyZP

Peter Kalmus @ClimateHuman

As for climate, ramping down fossil-fueled flight is only one puzzle piece. But it is VERY hard to imagine society taking climate breakdown seriously while simultaneously permitting cheap flights and frequent flying. There's no space in the carbon budget for this. ht @MaxCRoser pic.twitter.com/HlsipoyFqt