At present but, from the rather selfish perspective of someone who has spent a lifetime in this industry: an industry which supports either directly or indirectly millions of jobs around the world, I agree with the thread-starter's contention that this is indeed the biggest challenge facing us. If the chattering classes begin to regard flying in the same way as, say, smoking or not driving with seat belts were / are regarded, the repercussions for all of us in this business could be swift and painful. A drop of just a few percentage points in passenger air travel will push a number of airlines into immediate bankruptcy throwing thousands out of work and, if the trend continued, the industry would become all but financially unviable. So who would care? Well, everybody - including the chattering classes - should care and, as others have suggested, it's high time the industry started putting its arguments forward. Some suggestions:

• Aviation is already pouring billions into reducing its carbon foot print: aircraft and engine manufacturers are pushing the boundaries of science to reduce fuel burn and emissions (for cost reasons too of course, but interests coincide . . )
• There are thousands of research projects into the electrification of air transport flying but the technology isn't there . . .yet
• Air transport and, arguably, sea transport, are really the only industries using fossil fuels that, for the foreseeable future, cannot use anything else. EVERYTHING else: road, rail, industry, lighting, heating could, theoretically be powered by non-polluting means - so that's where the emphasis should be
• Civil air transport generates significant prosperity across the world: including for nations with little but tourism to sustain them
• Civil air transport is a huge contributor to the maintenance of world peace and the prevention of conflict: the more the peoples of the world meet and get to know each other, the less likely they are to want to kill each other (well, mostly)

And finally, if you are to reduce flying, how will it be done: most likely through taxation with the consequence that only the self-indulgent chatters will still be able to go for long weekends in Tuscany while the hoi polloi won't be able to afford their annual two weeks in the sun.

Everyone in this industry should start getting messages like these out there before it's all too late.

Wideroe (Norway) has set up the goal to become 100% electric by 2030. Avinor (Norwegan airports operator) wants all domestic flights to become 100% electric by 2040. What are these vikings know which we don't?

It also provides 'just-in-time' delivery of a wide range of components for many industries which rely on this.

My point is that the air transport aircraft will rely on fossil fuels for the foreseeable future except for small regional types. Wideroe has a number of Dash 8 turboprops and it is conceivable but unlikely that these could be replaced by electric-powered types by 2030. There are numerous current projects for electrically-powered small commuter-type aircraft of up to 12 seats plus projects to modify the smaller Dash 8s to take electric power and I'm sure that that's what Wideroe intend to do - very short sectors with batteries regularly topped up with abundant hydro-electric power. However, they recently became the launch operator of the Embraer E190-E2 - a 114 pax jet which will be in service with them well beyond 2030 which kind of acknowledges the fact that larger electrically-powered aircraft aren't there yet.

Science is a matter of probabilities rather than 100% certainty. So when scientists say they "know" something, they are saying "it is extremely likely".

Scientists know climate change is happening. They know there is a general trend towards warmer temperatures. They know that various greenhouse gases increase temperatures and that the prevalence of these in the atmosphere is increasing.

Now, climate change models are extraordinarily complex. The only way to make such a model 100% correct is to build another Earth, so that's unlikely to happen anytime soon. The lack of such a model doesn't make today's models wrong: it just makes them less certain. If anyone wishes to deride them, they need to come up with a better model that fits the facts and is logical.

There is no reasonable doubt that man-made climate change is is occurring and that, left unchecked, it will have catastrophic consequences for humanity.

Furthermore, there is a lot that most people can do to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Eat less meat. Walk instead of using a car for short journeys. When you drive, drive economically. Buy a fuel-efficient car, or an electric one. Where feasible, buy locally produced goods.

And, yes, take fewer plane trips.

Widerøe has indeed stated that its under-50-seat fleet will be all-electric by 2030. That clearly excludes the E2s and (if they are still in service by then) the Q400s.

Just you doing it barely makes a difference, it is the others that do the same that makes a difference - a bit like litter, if 10 people drop a bit of litter there is a problem, if 5 pick it up instead, problem solved, where you can be part of the solution not the problem!

Climate change deniers. Climate change believers. Is there a place for climate change discussers?
Is what we are doing going to have any effect if big manufacturing countries do nothing?
​​​​​​​Should we be planning for survival in the new climate?

1. Lots of talk re electric aircraft to help solve the problem but according to recent information commercial Marine traffic produces much more pollution than commercial aviation worldwide, yet no talk of electric ships or even going back to wind driven. Go Figure.
However the "Real" culprit seems to be overpopulation of the planet by humans, so I would bet that unless there is a huge reduction in that regard (war, pestilence etc) we are hooped.

Beardy makes a good point.
we have to restrict ourselves to periods in history when mamnals and particularly humans have developed.
indeed, we know the planet won't just explode, what climate changers claim is simply that life as we know it and in many locations it exists won't be possible.
others maintain that the climate may well 'trip' and jump toba new stable state considerably altered from the last few thousand years

Maybe that's the marketing dept talking?

How about science - are we allowed to use science to support the argument that anthropomorphic climate change is real?

This sums up pretty well why electric aircraft are not going to work for the mainstream anytime soon:

https://leehamnews.com/2019/05/31/bj...he-hype-curve/

On high density overland routes of up to 1000-km (maybe 800-km) high speed rail is the biggest challenge to aviation. That is the way that Europe and China are going, and I've done 1000-km by high speed rail in China when the plane was a no-show, and it was notable that the train was full. Why do you think the aviation (and automotive) industry works so hard behind-the-scenes to keep high speed rail out of the USA. The bad news for pilots is that railways don't use them. The good news for the planet is that trains can run off renewables. (https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=7457 )

There is another way to do long haul high speed transport, namely exo-atmospheric. See Space X (https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-elo...p-spaceliners/) for various ways of using the BFR which seems to be economic in ranges of about 4000-km to 10-15000-km. That's methane/lox so better for the planet than kerosene (though many questions remain on the general matter of emissions effects) , and there may be carbon-neutral ways of producing the methane. The bad news for pilots is that there are none. The bad news for passengers is that origin/landing points will likely either need a handy coast, or a big empty desert, due to noise/risk issues, but given that most of humanity lives in the littoral that's not such a drag.

For very short range intermittent GA one can see electric aviation taking a fair nibble. I don't think it will be much more than a nibble due to physical realities, but I fully expect most of the next generation of pilots will get their PPL on electric trainers.

So as a direction of travel for an industry I'd be cautious about extrapolating the growth of the last 50-years forwards another 50-years. Put all the above together, add in increased automation leading to single pilot flying (or no-pilot-onboard flying), and add a carbon tax that curtails trivial travel, and you can see limits out there on the horizon. It is not difficult to conceive a future in which the role of 'traditional' commercial aviation is 1000 - 2000km only, and especially on the thin routes. For the richer people.

The future of the aviation industry does not rest with pilots, it rest with those holding the capital that funds new aircraft programs and new procurement and leasing programs for new aircraft fleets. In the main, those capital holders and their influencers/masters have no doubt about climate change occurring and being human induced. Seek out statements by parties such as BlackRock if your doubt this, That viable alternatives to hydrocarbons for aviation are few and far between and this is also largely uncontested, as is also the value of tourism and other aviation-oriented trade. The industry needs to be pushing for the rapid de-carbonisation of the stuff that is easier to address, so that aviation has "carbon headroom" to keep operating and delivering service and value. Arguing against climate change, or downplaying it, is not the long game for aviation. Even climate scientists like to fly, if somehow it can be made to fit into a sensible carbon budget. Much more delay, and arguing abut simple physics and meteorology, and we face tradeoffs and stark decisions that we really shouldn't have had to face.