AI has made information more transparent than ever before, yet it has not automatically made people smarter. That, in itself, is an ironic paradox.
I was just discussing with a friend the recent environmental controversy surrounding European low-cost airlines. The narrative that “flying is inherently bad for the environment” has been amplified far too strongly, while major sources of emissions, such as commuting by car every day, living in detached single-family homes, consuming large amounts of meat, and engaging in frequent shopping, rarely receive the same level of harsh criticism.
In my view, this is not simply a misunderstanding of science; it is a classic case of cognitive bias and competition over narrative power, as described in behavioral economics. Ryanair’s cost per passenger is about €50, and aircraft emissions of roughly 100g of CO₂ per kilometer per passenger are lower than the roughly 200g from a single-occupancy car. Yet the public remains trapped in confirmation bias, seeking only evidence that reinforces the belief that “airplanes are bad.” Aviation accounts for only about 2–2.5% of global CO₂ emissions (around 3.5-4% when non-CO₂ high-altitude effects are included), far below road transport (about 12-15%) or the buildings and housing sector (about 10-15%). Nevertheless, public perception and policy discussions still tend to treat aviation as the primary moral target.
I feel that the core of this phenomenon lies in the bounded rationality of human decision-making. As Kahneman and Tversky pointed out as early as the 1970s, we are not purely rational agents; instead, we rely on heuristics to make quick judgments. The availability heuristic is especially evident here: people tend to overestimate the harm of aviation, while movements promoting “driving shame” or “single-family home shame” rarely emerge.
Reflecting on the details we discussed, the power of media narratives feels almost masterful in its influence. When I see that nine billionaires control around 80% of the media market in France, and that capitalists such as Bolloré or Arnault play dominant roles in shaping narratives, it feels almost too obvious to ignore. They prioritize the “aviation carbon bomb” framing, triggering loss aversion and leading people to instinctively view flying with low-cost carriers like Ryanair or Transavia as morally wrong. Meanwhile, the real reason for Transavia’s losses, France’s labor regulations and high administrative costs, often goes overlooked, rather than fuel prices. Tversky and Kahneman’s availability heuristic is perfectly illustrated here: videos of Greta Thunberg protesting aviation spread virally, and people remember the imagery rather than the dry fact from IPCC reports that aviation accounts for only about 7% of transport emissions. In my view, this framing effect not only misleads the public but also traps society in a kind of prisoner’s dilemma.
Extending this to Robert Shiller’s narrative economics, I believe this framework offers one of the most powerful ways to understand the entire phenomenon. Economic events are not driven solely by fundamentals; they are also propelled by highly contagious stories. The aviation issue fits perfectly into the characteristics of a “viral narrative”: it symbolizes “avoidable luxury,” connects to inequality (only about 10% of the global population flies regularly, while the richest 1% contribute a disproportionate share of emissions), provides strong visual imagery, and offers a clear moral high ground, making it extremely easy to spread. In contrast, narratives such as “everyone should drive less, move into apartments, and reduce meat consumption” directly challenge the lifestyles of the vast majority of people. This easily triggers defensive reactions and solution aversion. As a result, narrative power often falls into the hands of those capable of creating moral panic, rather than those presenting the most rigorous data.
Environmental NGOs such as Greenpeace denounce a “green flying scam,” staging dramatic actions to attract donations while avoiding discussion of structural solutions like subsidies for sustainable aviation fuel. Governments raise airline ticket taxes, such as the Netherlands increasing them by 20%, in the name of “climate justice,” while train ticket prices quietly rise alongside them, conveniently boosting public revenue. As for the media, traffic and attention are king, who really cares about data verification? To me, this resembles a classic tragedy of the commons: carbon reduction should require collective action, yet narrative power becomes a weapon, with each side shifting responsibility while the public becomes a pawn. In the end, the public becomes the greatest victim: living costs rise, yet the largest sources of emissions remain largely unaddressed.
Even though AI has made information more transparent than ever before, I do not believe it will automatically make people “smarter.” People still tend to believe familiar stories rather than cold numbers. Behavioral economics reminds us that if we want to change collective behavior, we must reconstruct the narrative, from one focused on individual shame to one centered on systemic solutions.
Most people still rely on media narratives, social trends, and political slogans rather than actively verifying information or dissecting underlying frameworks. As a result, greater transparency of information tends to empower those who can think critically, while those who cannot remain guided by prevailing narratives.
The core problem of modern society is not a lack of information but an excessive concentration of narrative power. The public is not foolish; rather, people are shaped by psychological biases, media framing, and political storytelling. The real challenge is not “how to obtain information,” but “how to avoid being controlled by narratives.” I feel that the ability to step outside narrative frameworks and understand the world through systemic thinking is one of the rarest, and most important, skills of our time.
You must be logged in to post a comment.