So what, exactly, is a “balanced, realistic approach?” If you own an airplane and you fly it, say, 75 hours a year, you’re burning maybe 600 gallons of gas a year. (Six tons of CO2) That’s a third more than the typical car uses and if you fly more or burn more, it could be twice or three times as much.
If you accept anthropogenic warming as a thing, you’ll know that the effects of it are asymmetrically suffered by the third world and by Pacific and other islanders in rising sea levels, even though they contribute a fraction of greenhouse gases that cause it. So for our amusement and hobby, we have Big Foot carbon footprints about which we are doing very little. I don’t see how a person can be an environmentalist or a believer in GHG warming and fly airplanes for pleasure without embracing the hypocrisy. That’s the only way I justify it.
One other approach is simple denial. You know the spiel. Anthropomorphic warming doesn’t exist, therefore it can’t be happening and aviation has nothing to with it. This is pretty much where GA is. Alphabet industry groups ignore the issue entirely. The airlines can’t afford to do this, however, thus SAF is getting a big push.
I’ve followed the climate data and especially the ice melt data and closely as a reasonable non-expert might. I don’t see any “balance” for people flying small airplanes. Either do it or don’t do it. Maybe do less of it if that provides a fig leaf. Buy a Tesla. Delude yourself with offsets. As I pointed out, the GA contribution is tiny, so making it less is likely to have zero impact.
I’m pessimistic about this. I think we’ve already passed the tipping point of wrecking the planet.