alt Hacker NewsIf you want to reduce air travel for environmental reasons, then tax it more.
Shaming individuals doesn't seem to be productive or helpful.
Air travel works for people if the benefits outweigh the costs. The only thing that changes behavior is to change the costs.
And even if costs were 10x there are still plenty of people who will fly tons, because it would still be economically productive. There are always going to be people who fly 10x more than others, because certain jobs and roles simply require it.
Replies
> Shaming individuals doesn't seem to be productive or helpful.
I don't see any shaming. It was all matter of fact, free from judgement.
I think a broad tax would just make it more difficult for middle and lower class to fly. Tax the business/first class and frequent flier, but don't push people who can already barely afford to fly out.
You wrote one of the solutions as if it conflicts with the other one.
Let's raise the tax on an activity according to its negative side effects, while pointing out individuals that do a lot of it and dont take personal responsibility.
> Shaming individuals doesn't seem to be productive or helpful.
I don't see how much support from history for that viewpoint. Some examples of positive societal change driven in part by shaming individuals: drink-driving, civil rights, sexual harassment, automobile safety, the slave trade, McCarthyism.
> If you want to reduce air travel for environmental reasons, then tax it more.
> Shaming individuals doesn't seem to be productive or helpful.
First, none of us have any power to "tax it more" so this is a dead end of discussion. Second, people have agency and we can hold them accountable socially for negative actions even if they are abiding by the current laws (or tax regime). This happens all the time, because laws don't fully align with morality in a culture. Suggesting that we should leave such things to the sole discretion of the economy and taxes describes a strange unhuman-like society that we don't live in.