Airlines are almost certain to face significant carbon regulation or carbon taxes in the next couple of decades. In turn, lots of engines will be effectively banned.
Of course, this is nothing new: noise abatement effectively banned a whole lot of engines, too.
I don't think it requires giving up on "affordable global flight". It might be a bit more expensive -- getting aircraft to be tens of decibels quieter cost something, too.
Externalities -- whether they're noise imposed on a community or climate impacts -- aren't generally addressed by the market on its own.
Indeed, we have a new regulatory regime coming into play for airplane emissions slowly-- with first effects in 2028.
I mean, it's already happening all over the world. It's not just Germany.
The UK already taxes carbon in aviation fuel. It's about to implement a carbon pricing mechanism for jet fuel obtained in jurisdictions without it.
The EU is implementing carbon taxes, and a mandate for Sustainable Aviation Fuel. In 25 years, it will be illegal across the EU27 to use aviation fuel that is not at least 70% Sustainable Aviation Fuel.
China has the world's largest emissions trading program. Civil aviation will be included next year.
Australia has a carbon tax, and will soon have mandates on civil aviation emissions.
Brazil does not yet have a carbon tax, but in the past year there has been legislation proposed, and it looks likely to be coming sometime soon.
The US EPA just announced regulations that will not force, but will certainly make it cost prohibitive to sell lots of gasoline cars ten years from now. Civil aviation is a likely next target.
The sun's variation in intensity over the solar cycle has a typical 0.2C difference... and even then, 5 years later you get the 0.2C "back".
If you're saying "another Maunder Minimum":
- There is no consensus that is going to happen; or even a majority view that it will.
- It sure doesn't look like the Maunder minimum caused significant cooling overall (perhaps at most 0.4C, so not much more than a normal solar cycle). Yes, Europe's temperatures swung more than this.
>The sun's variation in intensity over the solar cycle has a typical 0.2C difference... and even then, 5 years later you get the 0.2C "back".
On what are you basing this statement? The climate models I've looked into were wrong about the effect of clouds and ignore types of energy from the sun.
>- There is no consensus that is going to happen; or even a majority view that it will.
If I am walking towards someone in a rocking chair, they may be moving towards me or away from me at any point, but overall I will get closer. Similarly, if solar cycle causes a variation of .2C back and forth, it doesn’t eliminate a non-oscillating trend.
When weighing what is likely to happen, fringe beliefs don’t matter much. I would not bet on a Maunder minimum to save us, because A) it is not a big enough effect even if it happens, and B) it is probably not going to happen.
You've edited your comment-- I'm glad you've reconsidered including the below which violate the site guidelines:
> Oh please, spare me the polemics.
> Do you stand to benefit financially, directly or indirectly, from climate change?
But: I think most of us stand to lose significantly from climate change.
