dickerso

It's an interesting argument, but I feel that our overall material resource extraction on earth is mediated through commodity markets that reach an equilibrium between supply and demand. If oil goes back up to $140 a barrell, there are plenty of extraction technologies that we could implement to make even more fossil reserves, "recoverable." However, eventually burning everything that we are technologically capable of recovering would lead to the type of truly catastrophic climate change that's the stuff of horror movies (ie, the very upper estimates of climate change where we accelerate rather than gradually reduce emissions). Instead, I think we need to plan for a future where a substantial amount of our technically recoverable fossil fuels are left in the ground and we substantially rely on renewables.

To that extent, any cutting back either in terms of fewer trips or going from F to J (still plenty of opportunities to shower on the ground) will be beneficial. You aren't sending a market message to drillers (via Emirates fuel bill) to develop more wells.

If actually cutting back on any of the above isn't reasonable for you, even a letter to Emirates that investment in alternative technologies would be helpful. Emirates president, Tim Clark, seems to have had a recent evolution towards caring more about aviation's role in climate change, but this sort of communication from clients will help to underscore the commercial case for investing in transformative aviation technologies.