> Small-aircraft GA is a vanishingly small fraction of total fossil fuel use
OP wrote: "We want people who don’t think about airplanes as a mode of transportation to start flying"
They're meaning for this to become a larger fraction, besides that the relevant measure is pollution per benefit or per capita or something rather than absolute amount of pollution
So you're concluding that there is no benefit to general aviation because, presumably, you don't fly?
I think we should absolutely keep airplanes as a mode of transportation, because the alternative is that all small airports go away and then it won't matter when renewable fuels become a reality because there will be no longer be anywhere to land and take off. Those airports would not come back.
First off, you've got this backwards. One doesn't have an opinion because one flies or not; conversely, one flies or not because one concludes their situation does or does not warrant the pollution for a particular destination
But equally weird, why are you making this about me personally? If I say I don't fly, that's probably unusual where you're from so I'll be the environmentalist out-group whose opinion is too extreme and can be dismissed. If I do I'll be considered a hypocrite (like what you called someone in the other thread). I can tell you the answer is a middle ground but I don't think it helps anyone here to make this about me. I'd much rather make this about facts and science rather than opinions and feelings
> I think we should absolutely keep airplanes as a mode of transportation
I agree, but since nobody said anything to the contrary, that seems like a given
OP wrote: "We want people who don’t think about airplanes as a mode of transportation to start flying"
They're meaning for this to become a larger fraction, besides that the relevant measure is pollution per benefit or per capita or something rather than absolute amount of pollution