And aviation is, all too often, a convenient scapegoat - I'd expand on that but I must go and turn on my aircon.

That is a sound concept. Reward the less damaging, penalise the unnecessary and keep the status quo for the majority. The precise figures can be debated, but for private jets your 50 figure is probably not unreasonable.

Shipping. The container ships, the bulk carriers and (fewer) the cruise ships.

As a large part of the world decided to outsource their manufacturing to the Orient, then ship it across the globe and, as we need to import oil and gas across the globe - we see the problem.

Climate change is real.
Blaming aviation for it is not the answer.

It won't make a blind bit of difference to CO2 emissions.

I completely agree with you - all I intended to say, was that I don’t think that anything meaningful or effective to deal with it will ever be done. Therefor, we have to hope that there is a mistake in the theory, or that we get lucky !

I don't think anyone wants to blame aviation as the sole source of climate change. But it is a source of climate change.

We're in a boat, it's holed beneath the waterline. Just because the holes are bigger at the other end of the boat that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be bailing too.

Whatever we do the world i getting warmer - we may be able to affect the rate of change but it won't affect the destination

It's great that the world is warming up as of course far less people die of the heat as they do from the cold. Just ask those pensioners huddled around their one bar electric fire.
Global warming yes please 👍

Presumably you're trolling? I don't think anyone could seriously believe that global warming is a good thing.

But, just in case you're sincere, deaths from climate change won't just come directly from extreme heat or cold or other extreme weather. Deaths will happen because there won't be enough food.

Every time climate change is mentioned on the news, the first image you see is a big jet taking off or in the cruise laying contrails. When you ask the general public how much aviation contributes to CO2 emissions the, mostly, uninformed take a guess at around 20%. When you point out that it's closer to 3% they are totally surprised.
The narrative from the MSM is 'AVIATION BAD'.

Fixing the big holes gives you a chance of staying afloat. Fixing the small ones means you're going to sink no matter how hard you bail.

Aviation is conspicuous consumption - how often do you see a containership, where as aircraft and their images are everywhere.

There's also the subliminal effect - aircraft are noisy and fast, so they must be wasteful, right? Where as ships float, so they must be efficient as water is doing the heavy lifting. That's just common sense!

Containerships are definitely "bad" but while they are chucking tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere they are also moving many more tonnes of products that we need, or at least want. The container shipping industry is supposedly playing its part in reducing emissions. For really wasteful emissions look no further than the "float apartment blocks" or as they are called, cruise ships.

Nobody (well except the extremists) asked for aviation to be stopped, but for real, as opposed to greenwash, steps to be taken to reduce its impact and thankfully some steps are being taken. As with all sectors though, the steps aren't big enough.

Problem is that climate change will lead to big changes in where people live and where their food comes from. Substantial migration of hundreds of millions of people will occur. No-one wants this but there really will be no alternative. We can't STOP climate change but we can perhaps SLOW it

I agree Asturias56 When looking at things to reduce,we know that a family flying to a holiday once a year is not a big problem and provides them with an important part of their life. In the last couple of days I noticed two things that some will claim are VITAL to their very existence:

1) How does the Met Gala in NYC benefit the world? All those clothes and effort and human ingenuity ...
2) How does the Formula 1 circuit help us? How much fuel do they use going round in circles and then (sometimes) flying the cars across the world to do it again? I can see that a few men collect 'fame' and money' but ...

These are not popular views but, if you want to add in other fuel hungry events like Tractor Pulls and Indy 500, they start to add up. I wonder if anyone has done a carbon footprint assesment of them?

And adapt to it, where possible.

From a resource standpoint, we’re doing it wrong.

There is a substantially scarcer supply of “portable fuel” than there is of stationary energy supplies.

It is idiotic that we are burning natural gas in ludicrous quantities, to generate electricity when, for the same amount of carbon per KWh (more or less) we could be using the essentially inexhaustible reserves of coal in our country (which is now being largely exported). LNG works great to run vehicles, and if we weren’t pissing it all away, we’d be able to use it to fuel OTR trucks (like FedEx and UPS do now) for essentially eternity.

the convenience of diesel and gasoline are hard to beat for small vehicle propulsion, and the advent of hybrid technology for stop and go driving is hard to argue with.

Kerosene is essentially a byproduct of gasoline (and lighter than octane hydrocarbon distillation/cat cracking).
that’s why the airlines can often buy it for the same or less than the spot price of high quality crude when they do it on longer term contracts.

Bunker Oil, the stuff that is left over, after all the good things are removed, doesn’t cost very much, but has a lot of energy in it, if you’re ingenious enough to know how to use it. Most of the worlds shipping lines use it in giant diesel engines that require a pre-heater to liquify the stuff sufficiently to actually be injected into the cylinders.
There is literally not much else one could use this stuff for except road construction/maintenance, and we are using what is essentially chemical garbage to power a big chunk of the world’s commerce.

Intercontinental air traffic requires an energy-dense fuel source, and Kerosene fits the bill beautifully.

F1 is aware of it's carbon footprint - they would argue that the reason that the large motor manufacturers are involved is that competition drives innovation and F1 power units are remarkably efficient. Similarly the big oil companies are involved because of the drive for synthetic fuels.

The biggest impact individuals can make is to eat less meat.

Well over the past 48 hours F1 has contributed no less than 4 x 777 and 2 x 747 freighters from MIA into EMA, each one positioned out after unloading their "toy" cars and ancillary equipment, meanwhile their drivers doubtless flew out of Florida on biz jets. A totally frivalous emission of carbon, and thats without the race.

The technology argument of the manufacturers and oil companies is largely greenwash. Curiously I still can't buy a McLaren city car, nor a Ferarri for that matter.

Aviation isn't the villain of the piece, nor is F1, nor tractor pulls but the latter two are just not acceptable when we are all supposed to be "doing our bit".

No, but you can drive EV cars derived from technology developed and tested in motorsports, and synthetic fuels are on the way. Competition speeds up innovation.