>>>>>>Yes. Their new Green deal will impoverish and isolate Hawaii back to the 19th century, but that's a small price to pay to save the planet, right?
>>>>>
>>>>>Couple points on that line of thought -- doing nothing about the climate will cost a lot more money than actually doing something about it. I do not know why you think Hawaii would end up back in the 19th century. We already use clean energy quite a bit here, and tourists from all over the world are not going to suddenly quite coming to Hawaii - which brings in like $1.5 billion to the islands every month.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>One of the "trends" seems to be to hinder personal travel for CO2 footprint. Even fully loaded airplanes have higher CO2 footprint per seat compared to cars on Autobahn. Not saying that reducing personal travel is the only way to curb CO2 - just that depending on tourism on an island far from mainland does not fit with current arguments to save CO2.
>>>
>>>That is true -- but technology can save CO2 - and when that happens it won't matter - or at least won't matter as much. Plus if we're talking strictly the USA doing it's part -- most of the tourists in Hawaii are not even from the USA.
>>
>>Large planes will not fly on battery power for a few decades. Fuel generated from solar is possible (and does have some benefits compared to relying on solar energy in nights or winter) but losses and costs are quite high. Externally sent energy (think launching by firing lasers at rocket bottoms) have the benefit of not needing to lift the fuel, but are more Sci-Fi than usable tech.
>
>I think with proper investment and focus it could happen a lot faster. Look how quickly the USA built the space program and went to the moon. We did it by huge investments, pride, technology, etc. Did it once we can do it again. This time we NEED to do it.

I think generated fuel to be easiest - and my personal guess is that Hyperloop to Hawaii is easier than a 747-sized plane going tor a few thousand miles on battery power.