To make a few on-topic comments first:
For me personally, nothing burns me out quite like being surrounded by a bunch of people I don’t know. So even though I love Julia, and like to answer questions when I can – conferences aren’t my thing. (Maybe next year.)
Many find that sort of environment exciting though. And I trust everyone saying she could get a lot of out of it. So (like they say), I’d try Julia for a little while, know you can definitely get something out of it, and then decide if it sounds fun/exciting.
Now to derail things further (disclaimer: I am not an economist, nor political scientist – odds are many here know much better than I),
It is easy to make arguments about there being no impact from marginal changes.
But that’s some sort of weird, inadequate equilibrium, where there is no benefit to any of our individual decisions (to not fly) -> so we may as well, and the end result is we’re stuck in this pattern of destroying the environment with the convenient justification to ourselves that there was nothing any of us could have done.
If enough less people fly, less flights will be scheduled. Putting a plane in the air is expensive, and they need to recoup the cost.
Naively, emissions trading sounds like a good idea as long as they’re (a) allocated based on something like productivity (eg, kilowatt hour used by consumers), and (b) total limits are made increasingly restrictive on an annual basis. Green companies, like wind farms, would thus be allocated emissions, and become increasingly heavily subsidized by the fossil fuel companies they are competing with.
Although a brief search suggests like (almost all things), the issue is a lot more nuanced and there are arguments that these policies have enabled heavy polluters. So I don’t know (other than that more needs to be done).
Which is the danger of words. It’s so easy to string them together in a way that sounds nice and convincing (to yourself), with little connection to reality. That’s why I like code. I can just run it and see what happens.