Should people be restricted to one return flight a year?

[embers]

Should people be restricted to one return flight (one there, one back) a year in order to combat global warming? Should it be everybody, or just tourists? Or do you completely disagree with the idea, and why?

This totally isn't for my physics case study or anything.

[User Deleted]

nope, fly as much as you need, you have to get 2 flights to have round trip
otherwise people should choose to fly for buisness afterwards to save money (not a law, a suggestion)

[embers]

nope, fly as much as you need, you have to get 2 flights to have round trip

Sorry, should have phrased it better. I'll rephrase it to one return flight - meaning two.

[Spook]

I am against the idea, because people that live in other places may need to get to their families more than once a year, and people need to go on business trips alot (like my dad). Also, with less travelers, airports would lose alot of money and end up going out of business.

[embers]

I am against the idea, because people that live in other places may need to get to their families more than once a year, and people need to go on business trips alot (like my dad). Also, with less travelers, airports would lose alot of money and end up going out of business.

What's worse - not seeing your family more than once a year or the long-term effects of climate change? I see your point with a fall in passengers being a big deal (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&newstype=n&mode=detail&nid=1846) though.

[Kaya]

If people couldn't use a plane, gets just start using cars to travel.. So either way global warming is being effected.

[CaptainObvious]

This is a very difficult question. Flying is absolutely atrocious for global warming...

However, it's also absolutely necessary in many capacities. I'll give you an example: my stepfather is a bioethicist and public health specialist who among some of his other projects works on improving African public health. He flies a fairly obscene amount going back and forth, but definitely does more good than those emissions hurt. You can't restrict it that much unless you want to hobble the global economy and hurt other things; exchange of ideas and knowledge is vitally important today. That might well be worse than the warming itself.

[Fruit_Tart.]

If people couldn't use a plane, gets just start using cars to travel.. So either way global warming is being effected.
Yes.

People who travel back and forth need it for their jobs and personal uses. Cutting back flights won't really help much because people will still be using cars to travel. I say we cut down on the car travels that are fairly short distant instead of flights.

[Fact]

Should people be restricted to one return flight (one there, one back) a year in order to combat global warming? Should it be everybody, or just tourists? Or do you completely disagree with the idea, and why?

This totally isn't for my physics case study or anything.

I'm not sure about anywhere else in the world, but in the UK, air companies are always striking. Imagine if their profits were cut due to something like this? It'd have a knock on effect on everything else.

Also, 'global warming' is caused by a lot of things other than just air travel. If you're going to limit air travel, why not just say that people can only use their cars twice a day too? (Like that's going to happen).

[Sith Lord 13]

There is as much evidence for global cooling as there is for global warming. (http://www.isthereglobalcooling.com/) Limiting the global economy on the basis of a non-universally (nor even close to universally) accepted piece of scientific theory (used here in both the scientific and layman's definition) would be a poor idea in deed.

[CaptainObvious]

There is as much evidence for global cooling as there is for global warming. (http://www.isthereglobalcooling.com/) Limiting the global economy on the basis of a non-universally (nor even close to universally) accepted piece of scientific theory (used here in both the scientific and layman's definition) would be a poor idea in deed.

give me a fucking break that's such a joke. are you really so credible as to actually find that website, a collection of headlines listing various cold temperatures in different locales - which is in no way incompatible with a global warming trend - to in any way advance some kind of argument for global cooling? it almost makes me hope you're trolling.

[Sogeking]

There is as much evidence for global cooling as there is for global warming. (http://www.isthereglobalcooling.com/).
Uhh.. you might want to rephrase that.

Any who, I don't think cutting back flights is enough to change anything when it comes to global warming. I mean, there are so much factors that go into that effect. You'll have to do alot more to reverse the situation.

[Sith Lord 13]

give me a fucking break that's such a joke. are you really so credible as to actually find that website, a collection of headlines listing various cold temperatures in different locales - which is in no way incompatible with a global warming trend - to in any way advance some kind of argument for global cooling? it almost makes me hope you're trolling.

Not trolling. Just not paying attention. I linked the wrong site. Correct link (http://www.climatecooling.org/) (site has both anecdotal news reports as well as serious research)

[ShyGuyInChicago]

I would suggest that we should seriously focus on using alternative fuel sources that are better for the environment. That is the best thing because we simply cannot restrict flight to cut down on global warming. That is not financially viable for businesses.

[tpzy94]

hecks no that would be stupid

[scuba steve]

Should people be restricted to one return flight (one there, one back) a year in order to combat global warming? Should it be everybody, or just tourists? Or do you completely disagree with the idea, and why?



What about in countries like Papua New Guinea were air travel is the only means of travel between major settlements?

[Severus Snape]

How about we start disallowing things like air shows and private charter flights to cut back on global warming. Commercial airlines/Airbusses are the most economical and environmentally sound method of air travel and shouldn't be restricted.

[Happz]

I understand how this would affect global warming, but ait travel is used way to often to restrict it. That's like sudjesting that you can only drive a limit of 500 KM a month.

[Azunite]

No they shouldn't

[Donkey]

Stupid question; answer is N/A.

[Malcolm Tucker]

Absolutely not. It would cripple so many businesses. Everything from travel companies, to the food industry. If we limited peoples' ability to fly, the number of flights would drastically decrease, meaning the amount of cargo would drop too. It'd have universal consequences. Think of towns like Orlando, whose main source of income would be tourism, a substantial amount of which coming from air transport. There will be hundreds of thousands of job losses worldwide too.

Short answer: no. Absolutely not. It'd be the most stupid thing to do IMO.

Footnote: It'd make my life so much less interesting too :P

[embers]

Stupid question; answer is N/A.

Stupid coursework; question comes with the package.

But thanks for the replies, that was the main shit I wrote (and I can't seem to find many in favour of the idea). Although, to those saying it has economic impacts, can you see a way around most of them?