Earlier quoted context omitted.
> does not share the opinion that climate change should be addressed by reducing emissions. The opinion that it should be addressed or not? Because there's no feasible route to addressing it that doesn't involve reducing fossil emissions.
> that doesn't involve reducing fossil emissions. You can fly an airplane on non-fossil fuels. As the original commenter also said: He'd rather focus on earning money than saving a bit. Maybe that opinion translates to the climate debate? Maybe he wants to produce large amounts of energy with limited externalities instead of saving a bit.
Not at the scale of commercial airlines though and certainly not (yet) as cheaply.