I see the "how can climate people fly" debate kicking off as wildfires sweep the West.

I talked to a lot of ppl on both sides of this for the book I am writing.

I don't want to be a Bob Woodward. So I have a few possibly timely thoughts...

In general, folks on both sides of this are closer than they appear.

No non-flyer I have spoken to thinks voluntary action will solve this.

And no person not yet non-flying thinks we shouldn't significantly reduce reliance on aviation.

Where much of the discord comes from, I believe, is this:

Folks who have committed to not flying—an important and potentially significant way to undermine the current system IMO—see the "systems change over behavior change" arguments as belittling their efforts, and providing an excuse for business as usual.

Meanwhile folks who can't or won't commit feel the sometimes moralistic tone of "no fly" message ignores the nuance of family situations, career pressures etc. that make it a hard sell not just for themselves, but for the public in general.

And hence they have a hard time taking the leap if it feels like the public won't follow.

"The plane is going to fly anyway." is absolutely true on the micro level. It's on the macro level that demand tweaks will impact supply.

So here's my humble suggestion for finding common ground:

1) Let's acknowledge and celebrate those who have taken the leap to not fly.

2) Let's also acknowledge that we live in a system that makes this a difficult leap for some - one that is indeed a sacrifice - and doesn't necessarily feel like it will make a difference.

3) Let's think about our aviation carbon footprint less as a badge of morality one way or another, and more as a potential point of leverage.

4) Let's then focus on reducing our own flying where we can, and - more importantly - going after the systemic and institutional structures that make flying so often the default.

5) That means - especially now - embracing telecommuting, virtual conference presence etc, and reducing the need for business or career-based flying.

6) And it means applying political pressure to make airlines (and therefore air travelers) pay for the damage they cause - especially in the realm of frequent flyers, business class and private flight.

7) And let's also demand the full weight of government behind developing alternatives.

8) And let's accept that we are in different places on this topic, and certainly not use it as a purity test for whether someone has credibility to speak or act on climate.

It's easier to acknowledge 'flygskam' in Sweden, where I can take a nighttrain across the country, than in NC - where it would take me three days (and a shit ton of diesel) to go by train to Indianapolis.

OK. That's it. Rant over.

Now y'all don't have to buy my book and can go make Bob Woodward rich instead.

;-)

Also, if someone could hurry the bloody hell up with a luxury, renewable-powered airship with good negronis and wifi onboard, I would greatly appreciate it because I still want to visit my mum.