The Paris Agreement sets a distant goal and few practical constraints to curb climate change internationally. On the national level we often perceive little enerale organization to deal with the crisis.
At the same time we are continously bombarded by the dramatic discourse on the consequences of climate change that relies on the collapse of ecosystems far away in time and space from our comprehensibility.
The discourse has been going on for years but risks running out of repetitiveness.
Why there is such a lack between desperate messages and international consciousness; between abstract numbers and concrete habits and consequeces in real life?
During our research, what struck us most were the experiences that put us in front of precise limits of consumption and production, which allowed us to see how our actions and choices are comparable with that limit. We have realized that we have done too much, in terms of pollution, and too little, in terms of personal climatic actions.
Have limits of precise references are really useful to produce a change in the actions of people and countries? Or is a "flexible" approach, such as the on of the Paris Agreement, be more effective and reliable, since it doesn't pose any limit to possible creativity?
Although worldwide the production of aviation CO2 (civil and goods) does not exceed 2% of the total, on a personal level it becomes a significant factor.
We discovered that in this state of climatic emergency the most polluting transport system in absolute terms is that favored, incentivized, tax-exempt and hyperdiscounted
Is it enough to think only about the energy efficiency aspects of aircraft or do we have to demand a change in the global market? and how?
In the immediate future we can deal with the crisis through our daily personal choices but this is not the definitive solution and the situation must evolve.
How should we change ourselves, not only as individual but also as the neighboring and enlarged community in which we live?