In the theater of life, we all wear masks - ecoTrain QOTW - Are 'eco-warriors' hypocrites for flying?

Through @ecotrain with its weekly QOTW, our beloved @eco-alex once again brings us a series of interesting questions to reflect on aspects that concern us and often go unnoticed by lack of awareness, ignorance, apathy or whatever.

This week's question is one that has been a fair bit of media attention lately, with people like Matt Daemon, Megan Merkel & Prince Harry have been criticized for flying around the world whilst also preaching to care about the environment and climate change. It seems only the most fanatical climate activists like Greta Thunberg have abandoned flying altogether, with very few others able to follow this example. The question is whether you think people who are engaged with environmental concerns should find other methods of travel, and indeed whether flying is something that contradicts being an eco-warrior.

This is one of those subjects that, as humans, drown us in flat puddles. Chest blows and mantle tears from errors assumptions in which we have all participated in some way. So, if we're going to throw stones at the actors, it's good to remember that we're all part of the same play, as a character or as an audience, we all wear masks. Therefore, "let him that is free from sin cast the first stone" (John 8:1-7), for we have all been hypocrites more than once in our lives. "Justice, mercy, and faith are more important than seeking perfection based on incorrect standards (Matthew 23:23).

Based on this belief, we will fly over the topic we are dealing with this week, but first let's take off the mask to see well,without so much drama ...

What is hypocrisy?

Hypocrisy refers to the act of claiming to believe in something but acting differently. And, from ancient times, this defect of the human condition was already taking shape, for there is much biblical reference to it. To cite an example, in Isaiah 29:13, there is a complaint from God himself concerning man's hypocritical behavior regarding his relationship with Him: "These people praise me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Their worship is but a command taught by men." (Holy Bible, New International Version/NVI). So, as under the sun, nothing is hidden, this dark condition reveals us before the world as actors performing a play, and in the theater of life, we all wear masks.

Can't an eco-warrior fly?

Whether it can or cannot, whether it should or not, whether it can but should not, are arguments governed by the moral that encompasses the norms and values established in a society to guide individual or collective behavior and acts towards righteousness. But it has nothing to do with the law, but with the principles, so its fulfillment depends on the action and decision of the individual, based on his awareness of what is good or bad.

Starting from this premise, we can assume that what is at odds with morality is of a very personal assumption, and that what is said does not always contradict what is done, since what matters is what adds up and not what subtraction.

People who work for the rescue of the planet do what they can and fight with the weapons they possess, which are not always many, but they do it with passion, they put their faith in achieving a change of attitude through their influence. Such is the case of people who use their image to carry voices of protest against ecological damage, their intention is good, they cannot be judged because they cannot give 100% for the cause, their posture conflicts with their lifestyle and the demands of their media exposure. That is why some slide down the slide of what call double morality, which refers to the morality followed by someone "in the word", but who "in fact", does not follow the precepts he preaches. Seen from this point of view, they should not be cataloged as hypocrites, but as people with "double morals" or perhaps "relaxed morals".

So they are not hypocrites or immoral or guilty of a crime, just people who work and fight day by day for what they believe and dream, with what they can and how they can, according to their criteria.

However, when we talk about the environment in terms of ecological damage, we have to pay a lot of attention because if we stop to think about it, everything made by man modifies the environment and most of the time attempts against it. Do we stop and retreat or do we advance and destroy the future of the planet and humanity?

So... do they fly or don't they fly?

In reference to the damage caused by flying as a means of transport, many people don't know it and those who do, usually, don't have the means to prevent it from happening. However, the figures are alarming:

the aviation sector is responsible for about 2.5 percent of global CO2 emissions. The emissions that are caused by aircraft are even more harmful because in addition to carbon dioxide include nitrogen oxide, sulfur, smoke and water vapor. In turn, nitrogen oxide forms tropospheric ozone, which is especially harmful to the environment resulting in an intensification of the greenhouse effect.

This reality exposed to the world demonstrates that the comfort and efficiency of air transport has a high cost to the environment, but there is no effective solution that shows strategies to avoid ecological damage, without being hypocritical. That a few green warriors stop flying is not a relevant solution because this gesture of protest does not constitute a compelling reason for attacking the problem, it is more personal and moral than effective action. The point is not easy and the solution is not either, there are many interests in between and not only by users but also by the profitable business behind it.

According to DW Made for minds in 2015, "airlines are expected to pay a tax to offset environmental damage from 2020". And this, I don't know if it's the same for you, but it seems more of the same to me, how do you counteract ecological damage by taxing those who govern the world? It has been proven that they do nothing real and forceful to save the planet, they are not interested because it deprives the interest of economic power, and that is the god of many.

At this point, who is the hypocrite, the one who denounces and fights to reduce the systematic damage to our Mother Earth knowing that it faces the wall of insurmountable power that governs the world? We must not add superfluous accusations about what is right or wrong, for they contribute nothing and rather divide and discourage, it is like "pointing the straw in the eye of the brother without seeing the beam in our eye". We must close ranks in this war, think that this is a struggle of David against Goliath and seek strategies to destabilize the giant, which is not easy, but not impossible either.