Denpasar does flood regularly during storms. It always has.

But that aside, all aviation accounts for about 2% of global emissions, with tourism only being a portions of that. What is your basis for claiming that the only way to avoid catastrophic man-made climate change is to significantly reduce air travel? There are so many more ways to reduce emissions, with much higher ROIs, and much less economic impact. Electricity generation and land transport are so much easier to make renewable. The idea that the future of the world depends on reducing air travel is simply laughable.

We need to become completely carbon neutral in twenty years (at most!). Air travel shouldn't be our top priority, by far, but we need to address it too. Globally it has a small impact because almost nobody can afford it. But for a person in an industrialized nation the relative impact is quite big. When I travel from Germany to SF for example, I roughly double my climate impact for that year.

2% of CO2 emissions and growing. The impact is higher though. It's too difficult to trawl through the original literature on mobile; Wikipedia: The IPCC has estimated that aviation is responsible for around 3.5 percent of anthropogenic climate change, a figure which includes both CO2 and non-CO2 induced effects.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_avia...

Aviationis growing rapidly, and it's effect on global warming is bigger than just the CO2 emissions due to other effects in atmosphere (2.5 is a commonly used weighing factor).

Combined with the fact that the global warming pie is made up of many small slices makes it one of the most significant slices of the pie.

> makes it one of the most significant slices of the pie

Which significant slice of the pie is it on this graph [0]? It’s a tiny slither of the transport one. Most of that graph is just electricity generation split into different categories.

[0] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...