I've so far failed to understand why aircraft get singled out when it comes to climate change. They produce something like 3.5% of global emissions, but they definitely get more than 3.5% of global attention.
Please do convince me though. I'd like to understand.
(In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that I've been in the aviation industry and sort of still am.)
I think it's an optical problem since the emissions of private aviation are so massive and there is an easy alternative (just fly commercial first class). There is little sympathy for this.
Heating my small apartment is not an optical problem: If I don't heat it in the winter, I might actually die, there is no alternative for me, and the emissions are not that big. Everyone can have sympathy for that.
Visbility of both them and the alternatives (and perhaps the people and uses). Compare that to say bunker fuel in the cargo ships. We don't see the ships, we don't understand the fuel, I would struggle to name an alternative propulsion better than something in early research like those spinning 'sails'.
If you cross an ocean on a sailboat, either putting your life or the life of your crew on hold for days, are you still using resources in the best way? If I own a business that employs a bunch of people, am I better off taking time out from running it to sail somewhere so I can save the transportation emissions, instead of focusing my time on helping all those people be productive? People already choose transportation based on how their time can be used most efficiently. Maybe you could argue that wastrel bitcoin playboys or whatever should travel by sailboat, but the for the majority of people, even a sailboat is a pretend 0th order win that neglects any other effects of that travel choice.
