You probably read the title and said "Woah! Woah! Woah! Hold your horses cowboy! Doesn't flying damage the environment?" And the answer is of course, "yes!" And no, I do not mean that we should fly via something like a glider. I am talking about flying on a standard, jet-powered aircraft. 

"What do you mean? Do you want to live in a waste land?" I hear you screaming at your monitor. First of all, no, I am not crazy, second of all, no, I do not want to live in a waste land. 

And it is that desire not to live in a waste land that has motivated me to write this post. I believe that by flying more, we will actually save the world quicker, and cause less damage environmentally. 

Again, I can hear you calling me crazy, delusional or down right stupid. Again, I am not any of those things, I assure you. 

Why am I so hell-bent on flying more, not less?

Basic economics states that the more demand there is, the more supply will be increased. Are you following? This means then, if we fly to the extent where we increase demand so much, we will in fact force airlines to increase supply. 

This will entail more aircraft being purchased by the airlines to cope with the increased demand. This will lead to the wider public calling on the airlines to buy greener aircraft. It will also lead the wider public to call on the governments of the world's most powerful nations to invest heavily in its country's electric aircraft industry. 

I can already hear Greta Thunberg and her flight shaming taking to Twitter to complain about me. I can already hear her saying "Airlines are greedy corporations, what you are saying is absolutely stupid as it would never work!" 

And, yes, airlines are corporations, who's sole objective is to make as much money for themselves and their investors as possible. That's just a fact of life whether you like it or not. 

But this is where the secret ingredient comes in. Those airlines who pledge to either buy a certain number of electric aircraft after they are given their type certificate or pledge to invest in the manufacturers themselves, will get a tax break, or government investment at an exorbitant rate.

Again, I can hear some of you saying "Yeah, but tax breaks never work!" But that my friends, is one of the biggest lies in history. Most tax breaks are effective, it's just that we don't hear about them, only the ones that go wrong. 

Either way, by us flying more, we will increase demand. And, if governments can play it smart enough, by giving the best incentives possible, global warming will be stopped and the environment will be saved. 

But still, some will argue that the money that the governments of the world put together would be better spent on things like social reform or free medicare for all (if you're in the US anyway) or improving infrastructure such as roads, schools and hospitals. 

But to that, I would return the question that you asked me at the beginning of the article "Do you want to live in a waste land?" Probably not. After all, free medicare for all or rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure is useless if civilization as we know it will be wiped out in an instance afterwards!

What if it does go wrong though?

Still, there will be some people who claim that it will not work, or that the money is better off being diverted. Or surely we can stop global warming now, rather than making it worse before it gets better?

These are valid points, especially the latter one. 

There is always a back up. This time, it's the governments. If they have enough money to bail out the banks like they did in 2009, they can bail out the airlines and the aircraft manufacturers when/if they collapse due to this. 

But anyway, I would argue that it is the government's fault already. If fighting global warming is such an issue for society and for the government, surely they'd be putting more money into electric aircraft manufacturers, in order to get those aircraft up and running quicker!

Yes, there are small, two, three and even four man aircraft, but there isn't yet one that could transport a lot of people from, say... London to New York. At least, not to the extent of a 747. 

However, that is something that we can change, and something that I would love to see. A massive passengerliner that has the capacity to fly 200 people to the other side of the world. This is something that will reverse the effects of climate change, even if we have sped them up in the short term!

Why will flying more reverse the effects of climate change?

Ok, so you've realized that I really don't want to live in a waste land, and no, I'm not selling some sort of doom preparation or survival kit/guide. I just have a genuine interest in this planet, and a genuine interest in saving this planet. 

So, I've talked about how we should fly more now, even if it speeds up global warming in the short term, in order to increase demand. And I've also talked about how this increased demand will lead to green aviation jobs. And best of all, these aircraft will be fully electric!

However, these fully electric airliners will only serve one purpose- short haul, regional flights and light aircraft and sports aircraft. Yet, I have also talked about the possibility of long haul airliners, the successors to the 747. But these first "green" airliners won't be electric, but carbon aircraft. 

Yes, that's right, carbon aircraft. They will have engines like we see on current aircraft like the 747, except, they will not burn fuel to move a fan. Rather, taking in air from the atmosphere, breaking the bonds of the CO2 (Carbon Dioxide), and pumping it out the back. 

This will help to reverse global warming, as these aircraft will literally be removing the dangerous part of flying. The byproducts. They will literally take the Carbon Dioxide pumped out the the aircraft that laid the foreground for them, and turn it into things we can use. 

Oxygen for breathing, and carbon for literally everything! 

There are also concepts where the oxygen (or carbon) is stored inside 'fuel tanks' of the airliners, to be extracted at the end of the flight. Which is purely for economic purposes. 

Do you believe that flying more will lead to climate change being diminished? Why or why not? Tell me in the comments!