Funny, because Warmists won’t give up their own flights voluntarily. Perhaps we should ban long haul flights, which would stop them from attending taxpayer funded climate conferences in far flung exotic vacation spots
Not long ago, Europe’s young urban residents used to brag about their latest adventures on the other side of the planet, in Asia, Australia or the Pacific.
These days, you better be quiet about that, or at least make it clear that you feel a bit conflicted about how you got there.
The phenomenon has a name: “flight shame,†or “flygskam,†in Sweden, “flugscham†in German, and “vliegschaamte†in the Netherlands. Amid mass youth protests for more decisive climate action in Europe and around the world, younger people especially have started to examine their own lives — and their roles in driving up emissions. Globally, about 2 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions are connected to aviation. Planes’ efficiency has increased over the last few decades, meaning that a trip from Berlin to New York City, for instance, emits far less CO2 than two or three decades ago. But international air travel has also increased, eclipsing those gains.
Earlier this year, European travel agencies first started to notice a drop in flight bookings, a development they quickly named the “Greta impact†— in a reference to 16-year old Greta Thunberg, whose climate protest, including a refusal to fly, has inspired thousands around the world.
The debate over whether to abandon air travel or not — which regularly features on top of European news sites — has now also reached global politics. Ahead of European elections next week, in which 400 million people will be eligible to vote, the issue is quickly becoming a key topic.
Here’s an idea: if these Warmists buffoons do not want to fly, then don’t fly. Instead we get this from two jerks running for European Commission president
On Thursday, during a televised debate, the election’s top candidates, the Social Democrat Frans Timmermans, and his conservative contender Manfred Weber both advocated for finding ways to reduce short-haul aviation. Timmermans even said he would support a total ban on such flights, which took viewers across the continent by surprise and significantly upped the stakes, even though it remained unclear how short-haul flights would be defined.
The question both candidates responded to appeared to primarily relate to domestic flights, but there is no official definition for what constitutes a short-haul flight.
When will they give up their own use of short haul flights? There may be no definition, but, I’d think hopping from EU nation to EU nation would fit the bill. Perhaps they can take the trains, which take a lot longer, and, yes, they are mentioned in the article. We can travel like it’s the 1800’s.
“Climate change a major issue in Europe and Australia.†Whoops- https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/05/breaking-big-election-upset-in-australia.php
But maybe the “message to the world†should be that climate change is not a vote winner.
Shhh… don’t tell the media or the Dems.
Teach types and re-types: “Funny, because Warmists won’t give up their own flights voluntarily.”
Do you have any evidence to support your claim? Or is it just more Denier BS?
We have plenty of evidence.
You’re the denier.
The world isn’t going to go for this. They will need to be forced. Let’s face it, the serfs and peasants have no business traveling anyway. They should stay home and use the local parks instead. Only the important people should be using airplanes.
For the record, This isn’t far fetched argumentum ad absurdum. It is the official policy of the US govt, ever since the creation of the FAA with regard to civil aviation. A small airplane should cost about the same as an SUV. Instead it is ten times that. And the licensing and insurance will pretty much keep most of the rabble grounded. It is the reason we never got those flying cars we were promised in the 50’s.