>> 3% is a pretty big reduction for such a simple thing...
> You think getting rid of aviation is a simple thing?
That's not what was suggested, initially. Just the private jets. Then there have been some numbers thrown around, so it's not clear where the 3% comes from (1/2 of 7%?). Kneejerk opposition by taking the least charitable interpretation, is not constructive. One point is that something measurable, is action in the right direction, rather than whataboutism...even if it's only marginally effective, it's a mindset change for the following generations. Policies that are easy to understand (like banning personal jets) are more likely to be enacted than complicated carbon capture laws. That's another point being made.
The very first sentence in the parent comment is "All aviation, altogether, private jets inclusive, is less than 3% of world emissions." So your comment is completely off base.
Okay, and the person who replied was clearly talking about private planes. Hence the “so simple” part. Unless you interpret it uncharitably, like the person who replied to you said.
Hence, this is what I meant by choosing the least charitable interpretation. At least read through the thread to get the context and try to imagine different positions. Usually, people are trying to contribute to a conversation, even if they communicate it badly. If that's too much, get used to nobody caring about what you think or arguing until they get bored. It's certainly boring to talk to a wall.
Notice, it's a very common occurrence. People note that something posted is inaccurate, in their own personal interpretation. It's usually not directed at them, but there's a need to correct the posted because of their personal interpretation (re: xkcd Duty Calls). This is not to say, I've never been guilty of this (maybe this post is a great example). Sometimes I want to argue. Sometimes I want to explore my own beliefs, given another person's position, and get it recorded somewhere. That being said, I can recognize that it's not constructive for the conversation at hand and I'm trying to do better, while still growing my own understanding.
> You think getting rid of aviation is a simple thing?
That's not what was suggested, initially. Just the private jets. Then there have been some numbers thrown around, so it's not clear where the 3% comes from (1/2 of 7%?). Kneejerk opposition by taking the least charitable interpretation, is not constructive. One point is that something measurable, is action in the right direction, rather than whataboutism...even if it's only marginally effective, it's a mindset change for the following generations. Policies that are easy to understand (like banning personal jets) are more likely to be enacted than complicated carbon capture laws. That's another point being made.