This doesn’t effect existing fossil fueled aircraft. Every 4500tons of CO2 results in an excess death due to climate change[0], yet another example of where short-sighted NIMBYism is locking us into climate inaction and the increased death that brings. (Another example being NIMBYism killing electrified transit or High Speed Rail, nuclear power, wind and solar power either directly or via blocking transmission, increased sprawl due to dense housing being blocked, etc.)
All I said was I don't want some poorly engineered EVTOL crashing in my yard. What's that got to do with NIMBY or CO2? Regulation will hopefully prevent disasters. Is it really a NIMBY attitude to ask that a thousand+ pound contraption is thoroughly tested and certified before hovering over populated regions?
Well that's the issue, isn't it? There was no evidence that the previously expected regime meant poorly tested and uncertified (when the opposite is true, which is why such vehicles haven't already been flying here when they've been under testing in New Zealand for years), it was something that you kind of assumed. NIMBYism is also a reflexive siding with harder regulation as obviously necessary without good evidence, entrenching a flawed status quo which doesn't have to meet the same impossible standard.
Move fast and break things (on the lab) is certainly the way to do it. The problem is that breaking things on the lab is expensive, and some companies push it into the normal operation when they already make a profit.
When a rocket is launched out of a remote area to over the ocean, with a self destruct button, I'm not really worried. When a glorified quad copter with cheap LIPOs is over a populated area, I am worried.
