The alternative is that you make do, because this is a serious situation, far more serious than a business deal.
Ironically, your future income and the income and quality of your children's lives will be directly affected by your actions today. But, people just put it away in their minds, file it under "well, can't possibly do that" and forget about it.
If the worst that can happen is some scary figures pop out of the news now and again, what's the point in changing?
We will all look back in ten years and say, we had a chance to do something, but we didn't.
It is a prisoner dilemma of the grandest scale that has origins predating multi-cellular organisms.
My point is that this can't just be a thing that an individual decides. We need country-level or international-level cooperation. Prisoner's dilemma, as others have pointed out.
That is one way to look at it.
Supposing we said, physical meetings only work to an extent -- they pollute the atmosphere. Therefore there is no alternative but to make virtual meetings work.
I put it to you that virtual meetings would work well - if the technology isn't quite there yet, it would be rapidly improved - if we took the attitude that we have to make them work, instead of taking the attitude that we have to travel.
Seems like something other than flying might be a better target to reduce carbon emissions.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss... says that transport is 14% of total global GHG emissions.
And http://www.atag.org/facts-and-figures.html says that airplanes are 12% of transport emissions.
If we stick water vapour and co2 above the weather layer in the atmosphere, it will act like a pane of glass in a greenhouse? Right? You can't rain anything down from 35000ft can you?
Look at the warming graphs/animations, most warming happens in the northern hemisphere (where most planes fly), since about 1970, which is when air travel became popular accross the northern hemisphere.
Call me crazy (I know it's dangerous to make assertions without 150% of the facts) but that seems to me like an obvious thing that would affect warming. Please don't reply with some fact based rebuttal - hasn't helped so far.
I'm more likely to trust the numbers than someone who says "don't reply with facts". Yes, there is common sense; numbers can be misleading. But common sense can also be misleading; don't cling to it against all evidence.
I see contrails every day above my head, they fill the sky on some days.
There is a problem with the sky, the coincidence seems striking to me.
Like smokers in the 1930's being prescribed cigarettes - common sense should be able to indicate a truth that is yet to properly emerge.
Water vapour from planes (contrails) have a complex effect and is not yet fully understood see:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/airplane-contra...
Unfortunately, for a lot of people there are no viable alternatives.
But, unlike transport, where you at least have an alternative (live in the city, ditch the car), if I have family on another continent, flying is the only way I can see them.
A poster above you posted a source that flying is responsible for around ~3% of global emissions, but you nonchalantly relegated it to the realm of "fake facts". Your fanaticism is helping no one here.
Regardless, both flying and personal automobiles powered by fossil fuels are a luxury that will soon be done away with, regardless of your appeals to conscience. Fuel will simply become too expensive (as we run out or introduce a carbon tax).
However, this is not either or, which fact is correct or not, this is a sum game. We all add to the problem.
Have those facts true or not, helped in any way to reduce the carbon output. 2-3% might seem insignificant - it may be the 2-3% that tips us into a runaway climate.
So, move near to your family, help save 2-3% per year. I did.
Anyway, making yourself feel better by arguing with me, proving me wrong won't alter the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Stopping flying will. You have a choice.
But, given the choice, I would rather remove my 2-3% of emissions by cutting meat consumption by 90% and/or driving.
Your original post was just yelling at people to stop flying, as if there were no other ways to alter a personal consumption pattern. That's what people took issue with.
I'd say stopping eating meat will be a lot harder for people than stopping flying.
STOP FLYING!
Passenger numbers have gone up in a step change with CO2 count over the last 50 years, contrails compound the effect. The sad thing is - you will all look at this message and think. Why should I have to change? Why me, surely someone else must fix this?
Don't wait for governments, don't wait for industry. Make individual choices that affect the output now and we will see a reduction (eventually).
The psychology in this tells us not to lose hope, but to look to technology to solve the issues. But we must act responsibly in the meantime.