Sorry, I suppose I'm a bit too used to idiots going off about the smoke plume caused by the rocket carrying an Earth observation satellite or such. When there's anything to be gained, the costs of the endeavour should be measured up to that. Here there's no gain for anybody (unless one of those fuckers onboard has enough braincells to be able to appreciate the overview effect enough to affect their future behaviour for the better), so it's a net negative no matter how much the cost for the planet is. My intent was not to excuse anything about this.

I was talking about the direct emissions of launching a rocket. The indirect emissions are obviously vastly larger and might as well include everything in the wider economy that enables stuff like this. Just maintaining the necessary industrial capacity is already a huge strain on the planet. That's what I'm after with these comments. The rich fucker joyride is a largely inconsequential yet overtly visible result of a bloated system hiding in plain sight. The aerospace sector as a whole is just the tip of the iceberg of a global industrial society in ecological overshoot.

Although I doubt it, hydrogen can be produced using renewables.

It's still going to be significantly "greener" than using methane as a propellant, though.