HiloJulie - So what would be your answer to that? Cut air travel 25% - 50% - 75%? That is not a feasible answer.
Why is that not a feasible answer? You make quite a bold assertion without any given support that goes directly against what has been shown to be needed by the IPCC - "It is still possible to limit future warming with strong, rapid and sustained cuts to greenhouse gas emissions."
It does not matter to the physics of climate change whether you read An Inconvenient Truth, or The Art of the Deal, or Liberty Defined on your KOA to LAX flight, nor if you paid someone that promised you (and 100 other people) not to cut down a tree, nor how many jobs were created, nor that your flight is 50% more efficient than 30 years ago (even as there are 400% more of them). All that matters is the tons of greenhouse gases dumped into the atmosphere by that activity. Rapid, sustained greenhouse gas emissions means cutting activities that add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, not just paying lip service to the concept.
HiloJulie - I personally think spraying plumes of colored corn dust at golfing tournaments, or at Stonehenge, or throwing cans of tomato soup at the Mona Lisa in protest are just as equally ignorant as the ones denying climate change and climate science altogether
I don't know, while these actions may be small potatoes, more Tyre Extinguishers than How to Blow Up a Pipeline, you can be sure they are not ignorant of the issue and are at least doing something? Seems far better than being entirely aware of the problem but still defending massive polluting industries and frivolous consumption? (Won't someone please think of the the professional golf tournaments? ;)
Why is that not a feasible answer? You make quite a bold assertion without any given support that goes directly against what has been shown to be needed by the IPCC - "It is still possible to limit future warming with strong, rapid and sustained cuts to greenhouse gas emissions."
It does not matter to the physics of climate change whether you read An Inconvenient Truth, or The Art of the Deal, or Liberty Defined on your KOA to LAX flight, nor if you paid someone that promised you (and 100 other people) not to cut down a tree, nor how many jobs were created, nor that your flight is 50% more efficient than 30 years ago (even as there are 400% more of them). All that matters is the tons of greenhouse gases dumped into the atmosphere by that activity. Rapid, sustained greenhouse gas emissions means cutting activities that add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, not just paying lip service to the concept.
HiloJulie - I personally think spraying plumes of colored corn dust at golfing tournaments, or at Stonehenge, or throwing cans of tomato soup at the Mona Lisa in protest are just as equally ignorant as the ones denying climate change and climate science altogether
I don't know, while these actions may be small potatoes, more Tyre Extinguishers than How to Blow Up a Pipeline, you can be sure they are not ignorant of the issue and are at least doing something? Seems far better than being entirely aware of the problem but still defending massive polluting industries and frivolous consumption? (Won't someone please think of the the professional golf tournaments? ;)