Don't tell people not to fly.
You shouldn't fly. How often have you heard this message to cut carbon emissions last year? I presume it's more than a few. Don't get me wrong. People need to stop flying if we will have any chance of solving the climate crisis. Telling people they cannot fly isn't just useless but might also worsen matters. By changing the messaging, we can deliver advice that might have a huge impact.
Sweden has a non-profit organisation called "Vi håller oss på jorden". It means "We stay on the ground". The organisation's message is that whenever you travel, avoid air-borne transportation at all costs. It makes sense. Travelling by air is one of the most carbon-intensive ways of getting around, if not the most. By choosing other means, we can cut our carbon emissions and have a chance of getting out of the climate crisis alive. The organisation wants you to take the train when travelling long distances. Trains won't get you over the Atlantic Ocean, but you cannot eat the cake and still have it, right? You sign the agreement, follow the instructions, order a pin showing the world you care, and everything is okay? Not really.
Telling people not to fly creates tension between flyers and non-flyers. In Sweden, flight shame is an expression that explains how people who fly feel or should feel. People who don't fly might look down on people who fly and wonder why they don't comply with common sense. The message that organisations like "Vi håller oss på jorden" is sending out is seeping into our shared consciousness, letting us know that flying is an activity that should be bedridden with shame. On the other hand, the government with the power to make a real change will giggle, watching us fight. They laugh because they avoid being in the lane of fire and having to make any uncomfortable decisions.
Going by train whenever it's an option could have been a viable choice if not because the world is experiencing a biodiversity crisis, apart from the climate crisis mentioned earlier. When you think about it, air travel has one benefit over ground travel: you don't have to connect destinations with railroad tracks. Railroad tracks pose a severe threat to wildlife, not only because of collisions but also because of the way they cut through the landscape. You can read about how railroad tracks stop elephants from moving from one area to another. https://india.mongabay.com/2020/02/third-train-track-in-palamu-reserve-could-derail-seasonal-elephant-movement/
According to the UN, we must immediately return the land to nature instead of using it for human activity. Paving ground to build a railroad is essentially off the table if we are to take the biodiversity crisis seriously. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/03/rewild-on-massive-scale-to-heal-nature-and-climate-says-un-decade-on-ecosystem-restoration-aoe
A much more powerful message would be to tell people to travel less. By doing so, we can start solving biodiversity and climate crises.
