Many comments here (and elsewhere) argue for an "allowance", bans, prohibition, prohibitive taxation etc. which all boil down to the same thing.

I find it difficult to understand why intelligent people (such as those on HN) who have themselves profited greatly from freedom and choice, who are often of a progressive and liberal [1] mindset adopt such a reactionary stance when it comes to dealing with climate change.

It is utterly clear from our history that prohibiting or banning something has never really stopped us. If anything, people have invested all their brainpower to finding and exploiting loopholes and the more difficult and illegal something is, the more enticing and attractive it becomes to many.

Wouldn't it be much better to throw our combined brainpower into developing ways to deal with climate change that come without curtailing, prohibiting and banning stuff?

By all means, throw billions of dollars towards fundamental research to create breakthroughs in science and technology, such as airliners powered by renewable energy, methane-free meat production and large-scale carbon capture!

We've done amazing feats before, we put people on the moon, we will probably put them on Mars, why shouldn't we be able to solve climate change and in the process advance our civilization to the next level?

Personally, I'm convinced this will be the easier way compared to artificially limiting ourselves and others which is something that truly has never been sustainable in our history. Telling others what they can and cannot do has always ultimately led to bloodshed and fuelled sectarian and anti-democratic tendencies, always.

I credit incredibly cheap and highly available international travel (for everyone from broke students, business travellers to seniors) with the peace and almost unprecedented level of cooperation between nations and people we have seen in places like Europe and elsewhere. Think of it this way: You are unlikely to vote for someone to go to war with countries you fly to on holiday every year, you are unlikely to want to bomb places with whom you have extensive and intertwined trading and manufacturing relationships, you're unlikely to join the army and go shoot people with whom you've broken bread and gotten drunk on your "incredibly cheap" international road trip with a no-frills airline on your gap year before college.

Force everyone but the rich (who will ALWAYS be able to afford travelling internationally, no matter how high you tax it) back to rarely or never leaving their country, state or hometown and you'll grow a generation of reactionary hillbillies who get all their information second- or third-hand from the media if at all and whom you can rile up to go to war with "Oceania" or "Eastasia" or "throw out those pesky immigrants" with a little propaganda at any time. You'll throw civilization back a hundred years.

If you, on the other hand, foster international relationships, exchange ideas and people freely, then you will spark innovation, ideas and cooperation and ideally you will get progress and better conditions almost as a by-product of international exchange.

Smallmindedness, backward thinking and limited horizons have never benefitted humanity or any larger group of people in the long run.

Innovators, inventors, internationally collaborating scientists and, yes, merchants and traders with an international focus are those who have brought us everything we have today.

Stepping out of the (allegoric [2]) cave was once the first step to advance as a species. I'd argue that in many ways international travel and freedom of movement is us stepping out of our caves again today. Into a bigger world of knowledge, cooperation and scientific advancement.

Limiting our horizons (by whatever means) is not the solution.

--

[1] not in the political meaning of these words as commonly used in the US, but to mean forward-thinking and open to progress

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave