You may be technically right in a couple aspects but in the context of the real world this notion is ridiculous. Tell me of another method of transport that moves you around in a timely manner, particularly over oceans.

That's actually a major part of the problem. Efficiency (or more accurately: low opportunity costs) lead to higher induced demand via the Jevons paradox. Fast flights => more passenger miles, at roughly 40 gallons per passenger.

World Bank, passenger growth 1970--2018: 0.3 to 4.2 billion.

(Not paxmiles, but closely related, and available data.)

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IS.AIR.PSGR

I won't argue with your overall point, just to say that I don't think most people consider commercial air travel to be the least bit "romantic". It's a way to get somewhere, sometimes for work, sometimes to see family, sometimes for a vacation (I suspect in that order).

I was curious so I looked it up, the term "jet set" originates from the 1950s when it probably was romanticized as only the very wealthy could afford to fly.

Totally agree on environmental factors but the philosophy of a take a train instead of fly domestic, and not fly at all international - is great for countries where you can travel by alternative means to another country, and great for countries where domestic travel doesn't mean a 16hr drive because there is no train infrastructure. For example, this won't work in Australia.

Infrastructure can be prioritised.

Right of way is (mostly) cheap.

Agreed, unfortunately try getting anyone with that goal elected though, they immediately get eaten alive by the other side with "but they want to spend all your money!". I may just be speaking for Australian politics though.

per passenger-mile, flying is much less polluting than driving a car, even after you account for the fact that pollution in the stratosphere is more damaging. If getting rid of air travel results in more people driving across the country, that makes the greenhouse worse.

In terms of absolute consumption, yes it would be great if people stopped spending so much on things that are damaging the environment... but it would be FAR better to instead spend money on renewable energy and electric cars, which are by far the most effective ways to reduce CO2.

> per passenger-mile, flying is much less polluting than driving a car, even after you account for the fact that pollution in the stratosphere is more damaging. If getting rid of air travel results in more people driving across the country, that makes the greenhouse worse.

Flying enables burning more fuel to go farther in the same amount of time.

Your comparison is simply bogus and structured to favor flying.

In a world without flying, those travel miles don't get replaced by automobile miles. They simply don't occur for the most part.

For such comparisons you should really hold the travel time constant, not the distance.

Domestic flights are obviously the worst kind of flights. I see no reason for them to exist at all when we have trains.

Yes, I think everyone should stop driving as well.

I agree about the renewable energy but we need to take action on both fronts.

This infographic disagrees on the cars vs planes: https://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2017_39/2168831/17092...

It's from this article: https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/best-lifestyle-choice-s...

TLDR: One transatlantic flight is just under giving up driving altogether.

Infographic for much larger ants, if you prefer (via TinEye):

http://www.kimnicholas.com/uploads/2/5/7/6/25766487/fig1full...

In what country is flying taboo?

In Germany if you live in a bubble of progressive mid-20s. Probably the same for other European nations. I am mid/late twenty myself, commute a lot to other countries via plane and laugh about it. It's not that is an actual industry hurting phenomena, without corona aviation is doing fine everywhere and growing.

Right behind you! Listen to Greta. Listen to the science. Stop driving. Don't fly.