>>2005771>There is absolutely no environmental justification whatsoever that flying should be singled out for additional punishmentAlso, yes, there is.
In many places in the world, driving a car is necessary to maintain a reasonable standard of life. There aren't really viable alternatives, you need a car to work and to live. Flying isn't really the same. It's usually a luxury, afforded to a wealthy minority.
In many places in the world, operating coal power stations is necessary for economic growth, where a large percent of the population live in a dire economic situation.
Synthetic fertilizers keep famine at bay.
Is it reasonable for people to totally fuck up their standard of living, when their lives are already shit? Should addressing climate change mean pushing people below the poverty line or not allowing them to rise above it?
Climate justice is the idea that fairness and humanism needs to be applied when addressing climate change.
One long haul flight is equivalent to a year of emissions from an average passenger vehicle. Wealthy people (People who fly) have significantly higher per capita emissions. Them, and their ilk, have largely been responsible for creating the crisis in the first place. And, the cost to them of a levy like that, is relatively insignificant.
You can disagree with this idea, or specifics of it, but it's not an arguement that doesn't exist, and i suspect if you tried to argue against it, you'd be arguing in bad faith, when in reality, all you care about, and the only truth that matters to you is that climate change is not real, or, that you simply don't care.
It's pretty hard to find a middle class western liberal who doesn't in the end 'not care' about climate change, when it comes to travelling. But that doesn't mean on a moral or intellectual level that it isn't wrong. Most people with means are hypocrites. You only have one life and it is not worth martyring yourself to the climate cause.
