It's the opposite IMHO.
Reducing emissions directly will never work because of the Jevons Paradox[0] (at least for CO2 - crazy-high-CO2-equivalent-pollutants are something else).
The only thing that matters is preventing extraction of fossil fuels in the first place.
That's why the fossil fuel industry promoted the idea of "carbon footprints", and why Adtech make their datacenters renewable - greenwashing their business that makes money selling the whole economy of fossil-fuel derived stuff, including flights and the fossil fuel industry's actual propaganda[1][2].
You reduce your travel, presumably for the purpose of reducing jet fuel usage. A few things can happen.
1) Someone else buys the plane ticket anyway, due to availability or reduced ticket price, jet fuel usage remains the same.
2) The plane ride got cancelled due to low number of passengers, replaced with another plane ride, total fuel used by airline remains the same.
3) Jet fuel gets cheaper or more available, so the fuel you thought you saved gets bought for another use, total fuel use remains the same.
Indifferent to how practical you might think it is, one can still hold the view that it is more feasible to combat climate change that way.
Also, it is interesting to see, that you think it is more practical to eliminate air travel, than to employ new techniques to allow air travel while being climate neutral.
The climate morality debate is complicated because it's all statistical. "Drown Bangladesh and Florida" is obviously a wrong outcome, but there's no one individual wrong action that leads there. You could come up with an approximation like "each gallon of jet fuel consumed raises the sea level by one femtometre"; each action is individually trivial, but combined they are not trivial.
The statistical part is the easy part. You can handle the femtometres by estimating how much it'll cost to mitigate the damage, and taxing jet fuel per gallon in proportion (among with other CO₂ emitters). Put tax money to mitigation, and you'll even get a negative feedback loop that'll settle something reasonable.
No, the hard part is that we just can't do the obvious, because there is no one global government that could mandate it. Instead, everyone at every level - individual, corporate, governmental - is better off short-term by not doing any climate mitigation, because those who do will lose business to those who don't.
I think nobody disagrees. Your entire comment is rhetoric handcuffing. Nobody proposed to let "Bangladesh and Florida drown".
We are discussing ways to avoid current path of climate change which can involve other means than reducing mobility.
Unfortunately a lot of people are set on an extremely narrow path, which is a moral issue. How are you going to explain to third world countries that you do not think they have the right to prosper like the US did?
In the end, it is morally wrong to be single minded on the solution to the issues. We need to consider other means. Let the means compete and pick the best way.
I put "fossil emissions" in my original comment for a reason; things which are made from atmospheric CO2 and not fossil carbon, but then release CO2 again when used, are "net zero" and should not be counted unless you want to confuse people.
There are fuels that consume CO2 from the air during production and then burn it during usage (net being close to zero depending on the energy used to generate it).
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.