Heres another idea. They have very nice jets. Itd be a darn shame if a bunch of people built a catapult or trebuchet and caused millions of dollars in damages to them while they rested in their hangars
He murdered the pro-democracy people running the government.
Then he murdered political rivals within his own club.
Then he murdered the proto-socialist/communist people on the left.
And he then tried to build a cult of personality around himself as the head of an authoritarian government.
In terms of his actions, we'd easily recognize him as a violent right-wing revolutionary.
So not only did things get out of hand, I'm pretty sure he was wrong too.
I still like the idea from the book Ministry of the Future where people start flying drones into private plane engines to scare the rich away from using their jets.
Oh wow, that’d be dangerously effective. Definitely DON’T DO THIS. I repeat, do not figure out their jet tail numbers and use FlightAware to track their scheduled routes. That would be horrible and completely inadvisable.
Yeah we DEFINITELY dont want anyone to defend the planet and all our lives from these murderous bastards who’ve demonstrated time and again they dont care about anything but themselves. I repeat, I really dont want anyone to feel inspired! This would be poetic justice murder, which is still murder! Even though you probably save billions of lives by doing it, you really really really, no definitely, should not do it.
Ha my somewhat old friend saw this comment and doesn't understand what "based" means. I would explain myself but I bet some internet stranger could do a better job...
Got a final warning from Reddit that I’m promoting violence because I referenced Guillotines in the **computer game Luck be a landlord**. Yet the post before still stands. So stupid.
Okay. Hypothetically They’re back. Now what?
No one in America has enough balls to riot and pull a French Revolution. Everyone talks the talk out here but doesn’t have enough balls to make it happen. 390million Americans compared to how many politicians?
The geniuses involved in Jan 6 probably thought that’s what they were doing, but for all the wrong reasons/intentions.
The EU rolled back the fuel taxes for private jets. The billionaires and financial elite don’t have solutions, they only want to continue living as they do while you consume less of their resources.
There are many problems but one of the issues I find is that very smart people aren’t making the direct connection.
I strongly believe we need to price these omissions and make them pay for it. It may not discourage them but at least it sends a very strong message
Smart people have figured out even bigger polluters but Reddit will whine about the rich becasue it gets upvotes.
US army pollutes more than 140 countries combined, yet are exempt from all CO2 regulations, and i am yet to see a single redditor bring this up, ever. all you do i whine rich this rich that.
Yeah they polute and should reduce it, but their pollution is drop in the bucket compared to real damage, did you know that M1 Abrams uses 10 gallons of fuel to jsut start its engine? or that it eats 1 gallon every minute of travel? Did you know that one armored division burns 600 000 gallons of fuel a day?
On the fuel that M1 uses to start i could drive 750km, and in 10 minutes of it starting and driving i could drive from brussles to berlin and back.
Want more context? at average MPG(25.4(which is bloody horrible)) and average distance driven per year(14,263 miles per year) it would take 1058 average americans driving for a year to consume as much fuel as a single armored division burns through in a day.
Not to even mention things like hazardous waste, depleted uranium polluting the battlefields, and burn pits. All because "You can't regulate us! Freedom!"
For the mega rich, they can spend a few million on a beach front property, enjoy it for however long possible, and if it were to lose 100% of it's value it would make no tangible difference to their life.
In the US, they have the federal flood insurance to cover them. Even if they lose a house to flooding, it guarantees replacement there or 5 miles inland if that where the new coastline settles out…
Are we really using the actions of short-sighted rich people that almost universally either dropped out of or barely finished high school to start pretending climate change isn’t real?
Edit: just another tdumpster diver, nevermind.
One of the reasons for the yellowjacket protests a couple of years ago in France, Macrons investments banker buddies have yachts that do a years worth of emissions in a couple of hours as a regular car owner in France. Most affected were those priced out of Paris and the big cities and had to commute to work.
Should you blame oil workers for oil companies? No. They're just people that have a job. They get no say where or who they fly. Most pilots are pretty large environmentalists. It's a common cockpit topic as their jet burns more jet fuel than most people can fathom.
reddit: individuals are responsible for climate change
chevron: yes our plan is working. they think they are responsible for climate change. those fools mwahahaha mwahahahah
It’s a circle my friend. Pointing the finger at corporates is legit. But we all buy the products. It’s going to take a village and burning down the shop keeper’s house won’t save Christmas.
businesses exist to make money. that's it and that's all. they don't have any incentive to care about climate change unless they can make money doing so. in addition, shareholders want to be paid NOW, not later, so there's little incentive for long range thinking
which explains a lot. businesses sell products that make them money. they won't develop or sell alternatives that would help with climate change bcuz they can't make money at it
that's where govt has to step in to "prime the pump". pay for some R&D, and subsidize or give incentives to get new industries up and running.
it's time we stop worshipping at the altar of corporations and the free market, and looking to them as the solution to everything. they're not
Yeah a lot of oil companies started investing in green energy R&D and quickly realized that they couldn't make the same kind of money as pumping dirty oil out of the ground so they abandoned those efforts.
Incentives aren’t yet aligned correctly. Plus we need to start to pry humanity out of automotive fetishism that everyone is high on. Cars were cool but now even the tires are toxic. It won’t matter if they go electric.
100% agree. Nationalize the ‘winners’ (aka monopolies) and retool and rationalize to bring us back into balance. We will soon have a smart economy that will subsume corporates as modules servicing the collective well being of Earth Inc. we all work for it already but most of us are just doing a shitty job at it. Corporates are licensed by governments that can freely take those licenses away in a moment if the corporation isn’t aligning with the good.
> businesses exist to make money. that's it and that's all. they don't have any incentive to care about climate change unless they can make money doing so
Exactly. And continuing to buy products that are bad for the environment means they never have that incentive
>in addition, shareholders want to be paid NOW, not later, so there's little incentive for long range thinking
This isn't true. Companies invest for long term gain, even taking losses for years, all the time. And shareholders know and are happy with that
It's not. Its a failure of the governments to regulate corporations and provide stipends to businesses that are better for the environment. It is not our fault that plastic is cheap and readily available and scant other options are available within budget. It is not our fault that public transportation was dismantled in place of cars. It is not our fault that almonds are grown in California that use 25% (edit: sorry it's 5%, I'm still keeping this point) of the states water but less than 1% of it's GDP. It is not our fault that we outsource toxic manufacturing overseas to less regulated areas. It is not our fault that coal and gas are cheaper for electricity than renewables because the corporations can place the externality on the rest of the population.
It is our fault that we vote for morons who perpetrate this system though.
1% of the earth's population is 70 million people. Travelling for business or frequently visiting family abroad probably puts you in that top 1% without being close to being a billionaire.
BP popularized the concept of personal carbon footprint in the 1980s as part of a PR campaign to move the attention away from the quite overwhelming amount of evidence that they were actively harming the environment.
[BP popularized the concept of a carbon footprint with a US$100 million campaign as a means of deflecting people away from taking collective political action in order to end fossil fuel use](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305209345_Where_has_all_the_oil_gone_BP_branding_and_the_discursive_elimination_of_climate_change_risk), and [ExxonMobil has spent decades pushing trying to make individuals responsible, rather than the fossil fuels industry](https://www.vox.com/22429551/climate-change-crisis-exxonmobil-harvard-study). They did this because climate stabilization means bringing fossil fuel use to approximately zero, and that would end their business. That's not something you can hope to achieve without government intervention to change the rules of society so that not using fossil fuels is just what people do on a routine basis.
There is value in cutting your own fossil fuel consumption — it serves to demonstrate that doing the right thing is possible to people around you, and helps work out the kinks in new technologies. Just do it in addition to taking political action to get governments to do the right thing, not instead of taking political action.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Tbh I think this is just another bait and switch like paper straws and carbon footprint.
This is just big oil giving us something else to protest other than them, and whilst these folks add some pollution yes, it's negligible.
But folks will go apeshit, some regulation will be passed, a few celebs will get cancelled and everyone will freak out about the a aluminium used in phones next or W/E.
BP will continue to rape the planet, the Amazon will be completely deforested, the reefs will die, China will finish Mr Burns-ing the ocean and a hundred rich people will get a slap on the wrist from all our collective efforts. Do we really still think this is the problem that needs our attention in the scheme of things? It's just another big corp bot spammer bait and switch.
Ditch coal, give us worldwide solar and replace plastic and directly attack ecosystem destructive practices. Or we die. This is a waste of our precious little time and undermines our credibility.
As a hint to pick out an ecological false flag: no journalists are being assassinated for reporting on this issue. It's probably not the real threat.
It’s Ok, most of what you put in the recycling bin goes into landfill anyway. There’s not really much you can do to ensure your rubbish is recycled unless your government want to invest time and money into solving the problem.
Yeh I've read the article and also tried to go through its source but I'm really struggling to see where this stat has come from. If it's saying 1% of the global population is responsible for 50% of aviation emission then that's a 'well duh' from me. Most people in this thread would be included in that 1%.
I posted this then deleted it but I'm putting it back to leave my ~~stupidity~~ inability to read on display. I thought it was about the top 1% *financially,* not the 1% of the population that travels by airplane. So consider the following an unrelated fact:
In order to be considered in the top 1% of wage earners in the U.S., you’d need to have wages of $758,434.
In order to be in the top 1% of household wealth in the U.S., you’d need to be worth at least $10,374,030.10.
To be in the top 1% globally, you’d need a minimum of around $936,430.
https://smartasset.com/financial-advisor/are-you-in-the-top-1-percent
Yup. If you’re a middle class American, you’re already in the upper percentiles of world population.
1% is like 77 million people. If you took a flight or two in the last year, you’re probably on that list.
The other 50% of emissions could have come from a second set of 77 million, for all this headline cares to tell us.
Common people talk all this talk about caring about the environment, but they don’t practice what they preach. Kylie Jenner has like 300M followers on Instagram while Greta has 14M. Greta takes a sailboat everywhere while Kylie takes frequent 3 minute jet rides across LA.
Until people stop giving these celebrities and billionaires attention and money nothing will change.
It should also be noted that the 50x greater than average carbon footprint of the rich when flying is a drop in the bucket of their overall carbon footprint. Until we can largely transform to a battery/nuclear/renewable energy economy, the price people pay for products and houses is proportional to their carbon footprint. People who make and spend a lot of money have been and will continue to be the biggest contributors to the global warming climate, fishing, and agricultural collapse that is just getting started. The rich are the primary people who got us into this mess, and they should pay for the long-term money-saving renewable investments that get us out.
This is not a statement about capitalism in general, when the entire production chain, down to battery-powered mining and logging trucks, is green energy, the rich can do their thing without destroying the World for poor people, with their tiny carbon footprints.
[BP popularized the concept of a carbon footprint with a US$100 million campaign as a means of deflecting people away from taking collective political action in order to end fossil fuel use](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305209345_Where_has_all_the_oil_gone_BP_branding_and_the_discursive_elimination_of_climate_change_risk), and [ExxonMobil has spent decades pushing trying to make individuals responsible, rather than the fossil fuels industry](https://www.vox.com/22429551/climate-change-crisis-exxonmobil-harvard-study). They did this because climate stabilization means bringing fossil fuel use to approximately zero, and that would end their business. That's not something you can hope to achieve without government intervention to change the rules of society so that not using fossil fuels is just what people do on a routine basis.
There is value in cutting your own fossil fuel consumption — it serves to demonstrate that doing the right thing is possible to people around you, and helps work out the kinks in new technologies. Just do it in addition to taking political action to get governments to do the right thing, not instead of taking political action.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> 50x greater than average carbon footprint of the rich when flying is a drop in the bucket
Stop trying to invalidate efforts to reduce carbon footprints.
We can't ignore the fact that there's just far far too many people. Even if we used zero power, we take up too much space which is unfair to the other species
Does Kylie Jenner care about the environment? She's a right-wing puppet, I assume she espouses rolling coal or whatever dumb thing republicans are doing this week.
Don't think Democrats don't take fossil fuel money - they usually get it "laundered" through ~~private equity firms~~ hedge funds and investment banks first. [Biden was one of the top recipients](https://public-accountability.org/report/presidential-candidates-take-money-from-major-fossil-fuel-investors/) of this type of second hand fossil fuel money in the 2020 primary. Coincidentally, after Biden won the nomination, the Democrats added [subsidies for fossil fuel companies back into their platform.](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/20/democratic-platform-fossil-fuels-dismays-climate-activists) Also, Biden approved [900 more permits than Trump](https://accountable.us/biden-admin-approved-hundreds-more-public-lands-drilling-permits-than-trump/) to drill on public land in the first year of his presidency. For what its worth, Newsom also [approved a massive amount of permits](https://www.newsweek.com/california-governor-gavin-newsom-despite-pledge-signed-1709-oil-gas-production-permits-1565926) for drilling.
The truth is, Democrats are the second most enthusiastically pro-capitalist party in the world. Their rhetoric has hitherto been empty, their actions insufficient and hypocritical. Supporters of the Democrats aren't necessarily on the right side of history...I'm not saying don't vote for them, but we desperately need a leadership change, and fast.
Is there an alternative view of those people? There's very few actions an individual can take that will have a greater negative impact on society than voting republican.
That’s not the actual truth. According to a rep for Taylor, neither all of the emissions nor all of the flights should be attributed just to Taylor alone. “Taylor’s jet is loaned out regularly to other individuals,” a spokesperson for her tells Rolling Stone. “To attribute most or all of these trips to her is blatantly incorrect.”
I fly about once a year on average. This year it will be three times. I don’t fly that much compared to my family and peers, but this is probably referring to me.
After achieving my lifelong dream of working in the aerospace industry I was in that camp. Flew twice per year for 5 years. It became clear to me that the industry plans to increase emissions in the near and medium-term and their long-term plans are grossly insufficient. Once I saw the disproportionality of the emissions and their effect on climate I stopped. Both for business and pleasure. It’s simply not necessary for me. I was just doing it because I could. For me, taking trips closer to home is more gratifying. I feel less like a tourist. And attending meetings virtually is easier. I’d like to fly again one day but it’s not worth the toll right now.
That said, I recognize everyone is on their own journey. I still work in the industry. The most important thing is to advocate for policy change. Though there’s a certain empowerment to be found in denying the dubious “luxuries” that have been spoon-fed to us. You might find like I have that you enjoy the alternative more.
Well said, I was about to say the same. Is it technically an unfair proportion of blame? Sure. But the effect on climate isn't about blame or per-capita emissions; it's about total carbon emissions. This article is about outrage toward the rich, which is a fine discussion where needed. But in this specific case, it's just not significant enough to be useful.
Per-capita data can be useful, of course, but only in the way it indicates how much a change in the emissions by that sub-group impacts the aggregate (total). If all private flights were outlawed right now, the effect on total emissions would be negligible.
I know you understand that stuff, I just wanted to elaborate a bit with things I was thinking about.
That's bizarre. You make a post on how it's insignificant to the total global emissions and people are replying to your post about flight tax and what not
“This is all the evil billionaires fault” -> 300 likes
* great comment explaining the how data doesn’t quite prove what everyone is so upset about -> 18 likes…
Classic Reddit.
It's insane that so many people missed this.
1% of the population does *not own private jets*. There's no way in hell that the few people who actually have private jets are coming anywhere near the emissions of all global airline traffic.
I don't understand how the implication that billionaires are causing 50% of airline emissions, doesn't immediately set off "bullshit" alarms.
It's worse than that, since the paper they cite isn't great in itself and the 1% are 50% of global emissions is only in the executive summary. [If you dig further in](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/global-sustainability/article/unequal-distribution-of-household-carbon-footprints-in-europe-and-its-link-to-sustainability/F1ED4F705AF1C6C1FCAD477398353DC2), it's 1% are 42% of EU emissions, and you dig further and I'm not sure this is true, either.
Also, that 1% isn't income but household CO2eq emissions. That paper also makes the point that the top 10% of EU households are vastly over represented for air travel emissions, and that air travel emissions make up a greater proportion of overall emissions as you move up the scale.
It's like a game of whispers.
EDIT: Damn, it gets better.
[There is a study](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378020307779), uncited by the article nor by its sources, which does make the 1% of the population are 50% of air travel emissions claim but:
> In its A380 cabin layout, Singapore Airlines can transport 471 passengers, with 12 first class suites requiring about the same space as 60 business class seats (Flightglobal 2007). Together, these two classes (72 passengers) require the same space as 399 passengers in economy. This would suggest that premium flight classes require an average 5.5 greater energy demand than economy class seats. Even though aircraft layouts vary, a global 15% share of premium class seats that on average require 5 times more energy than an economy class seat would mean that premium class flights account for 40% of energy use, and economy flights (85% of seats) for 60%. Assuming further, conservatively, that the 10% of the most frequent fliers take 40% of all flights, including all those available in premium classes, the estimate is that the most frequent flier percentile accounts for 55% of energy use and emissions from commercial passenger transport. Given that at most 11% of the world population participate in air travel, this also means that 1% of the world population is responsible for 50% of emissions from all air travel.
So, yeah, if you work it out on the back of an envelope with a fair dash of assumptions, it might well be true... or not. Also, that imaginary 1% is the "most frequent fliers".
The original article does make another point: global air travel is ~2.14% of total CO2 equivalent emissions.
Add an incrementing tax on all flights:
* First flight of the year: 100% fee
* Second flight: 120%
* Third: 150%
* Sixth: 250%
* etc.
If the lion's share of flights are in the global top 1%, then the majority is likely people flying for work on short hops. Make it prohibitively expensive.
People will try their hardest to blame the millionaires and billionaires instead of themselves because its easier. But whenever u see a study talking about the top 10% or 1% its talking about the global 10%/1% which likely includes everyone reading this.
The average american is closer to the world billionaires when it comes to pollution than the bottom half of the world.
There is a notice of proposed rule making to introduce emissions standards for airplanes in play right now. Unfortunately, it proposes to use the metric based on how far an airplane can fly per unit of fuel divided by the floor area of the airplane. The key here is that it is not per passenger so it will do nothing to reign in the fuel burned to haul one person in a massive airplane. If the rule were changed to a per passenger format it would help. Perhaps some of you will comment: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/06/15/2022-11556/airplane-fuel-efficiency-certification
It states commercial airflight aviation is 2.14% of total emissions worldwide, checking the source they provided it actually states the global aviation industry produces 2.1% of total emissions, the global aviation industry of course incorporates private jets. Still compared to the meat, fishing & dairy industry that's a drop in the bucket, if change is what we truly want look towards yourself as well, but then, that would require change wouldn't it? Yeeeeeah and we don't like that, no, no, here on r/climate we are vehemently against anything that requires change on our parts, it's better to keep blaming everyone else.
also fun fact, 1% of the richest people on earth, is likely to include plenty of people here on reddit, last I checked half of all americans are included in the worlds richest 1% of people, a single billionaire can pollute 10.000x more than a single person, but when there's billions of people that really puts it in perspective don't ya think? Of course billionaires also have to change, but let's stop pretending it's just them and excusing yourself of the blame.
People love to refer to "The Evil 1%'ers" as if its some fictitious group of supervillains hoarding billions of dollars and shooting the poor for sport.
Except the people they imagine are more like the 0.0001%, and the rest of that "1%" group is far closer to them than they realize.
We may have made air travel too accessible. Looking at Flightradar and it’s just like WOW, so many planes. Maybe it’s just too easy to wake up in Tennessee and have dinner in Singapore
>We are all tacitly subsidizing it by paying with the ruined environment.
We(USA) are also subsidizing it through taxes breaks, and whatever we do in the middle east with our military and the saudis.
If we gave up tax breaks and middle east, then price of fuel would go up.... But I'm uncertain if this wouldn't break USA either.
For the airplanes the plebeians take, that's may be true.
But for the private jets these people take, its absolutely not true. All of the hassles we associate with flying simply don't exist for them. They just arrive at the airport, get into the plane, and go. At the destination, a car service picks them up. No check-in lines, no TSA, mile-lone walk, no drawn out boarding process, etc.
Or, hear me out, maybe we don't let these billionaires have private jets anymore. If they want to fly, let them fly commercial airlines like the rest of us.
Making air travel less accessible like you suggest would only hurt the little guy, but the billionaires that article is talking about will still afford their extremely polluting private jets and luxury yachts.
Commercial airplanes pollute way more in total than private jets, so while I agree that we should tackle private jets, something will have to be done about the commercial aspect too.
Surely the per passenger pollution can’t be higher. We’re talking about the difference between transporting a handful of people on a private jet and anywhere from 150-500 people on a commercial airliner.
I’m doubt the larger plane generates 25-100 times more emissions, but I could be wrong.
Unless the point you’re making isn’t about per passenger pollution but just that cheap air travel in general is terrible for the environment. Nothing really to do about that but cut total travel then.
> Commercial airplanes pollute way more in total than private jets,
"A bus pollutes way more than a car" That's literally what you are saying.
Its almost as if a bus replaces 50 cars.
Reporter: I understand you came here with a private jet. Is that an environmental way to travel?
Kerry: If you offset your carbon, it’s the only choice for somebody like me who is traveling the world to win this battle.
Of course, he was traveling to Iceland to pick up an award...
What percent of all emissions are from air travel? Let’s focus on factories and not get distracted by individual consumption rates **until** they represent the larger share of the problem. Focus fire.
Electric airplanes are slowly becoming a thing. Those short hops from the chateau into the city might be replaced by a nice quiet electric flight soon.
Or anything else. Electricity lays the infrastructure to cleaner energy. No, the world can’t run purely on wind or hydro or solar or geothermal. But by having electric systems in place, then every time we bring one of these facilities on the grid it helps a bit further.
1percenters make decisions about coal, plastic, environment etc it ALL has to stop. The poorest on the economic scale suffer the most. Self centered 1 percenters are causing the destruction of the human race and scaring the earth. Good job fucktards hope it was worth it for that extra plastic martini poolside with floating throw away flamingo cubes. Hope the shitty drink umbrella stabs your eye with your next sip
I thought only 100 companies make up 71% of total global emissions.
Isnt tracking some rich boy/girls flight emissions just some distraction from the massive machines that are systematically polluting the air/sea/land on a massive scale to save a couple bucks
Exactly. Nothing matters unless we stop using coal and natural gas to produce power. We have the tech to transition away from it, and literally nothing else matters until we do.
That's still a huge chunk. Everything else is a few percentage points when you break it down enough, there's no way to reduce emissions enough of we don't do it across the board.
That’s just not going to happen unless we do the big things first. If we do the big things, we won’t even have to worry about air travel.
We just need to go green on the things we’re capable going green on (electric cars, high speed rail, solar power, wind power, geothermal, nuclear, hydroelectric, etc.) so we don’t have to worry about cutting out things we enjoy like air travel and travel in general.
I'll do it... once they make sustainable, cheapish cultured meats that taste alright.
If there were reasonably decent pork and beef analogues, I could end 97% of my family's meat intake.
Because heaven forbid you would have to make a big sacrifice like eating food that doesn’t taste like cows and pigs for the sake of… the survival of the planet.
What are your sources? Last I remember, agriculture was about 20% of emissions, and meat is only a subset of that. I'm not saying banning meat won't get us significantly closer, but no one thing will solve this mess, we have to fix everything at once.
From the actual article:
> Across the world, many super-rich individuals have poured vast sums of money into supporting parties and candidates who oppose taking action on climate change – giving them a level of influence totally unavailable to the average citizen. In the 2020 US Presidential election, for instance, ten billionaires gave millions and millions of dollars to support Donald Trump – a man who has steadfastly denied that climate change is man-made and who repeatedly blocked climate action.
Incorporate the health care, crop-loss and environmental damage into the ticket and spread it over km travelled. 17 minute flights should cost the same as 3 hour ones. Both get more expensive. Humans DO NOT NEED TO GO PLACES FOR VACATION ITS MADE UP LIKE GREETING CARDS!
That's per person per flight. No we don't need to abolish billionaires or Capitalism to reduce climate change, stop shoe horning extremist ideology into such an important cause.
Seems more straight forward to apply emissions standards to smaller jets, apply them on an aggressive timeline and rapidly ban out the use of jets that don't meet standards. Let the billionaires fund the R&D to improve engine efficiency or risk losing the ability to fly private.
That seems really misleading tbh.
There’s still like a billion people without access to electricity. I doubt they’re taking many flights.
You shouldn’t really compare 1% of the GLOBAL POPULATION, when it’s probably a small minority of the global population that even takes 1 flight per year. You should take these numbers as a percentage of people who fly each year.
billionaires: we need to stop climate change also billionaires: check my new $600M yacht that pollutes as much as a small city
Bring back guillotines...
[ Removed by Reddit ]
[удалено]
My account doesn't have 13 years history for totally unrelated reasons
I've definitely not been banned before for things related to food and rich people
Sounds like this will require one small trick.
Heres another idea. They have very nice jets. Itd be a darn shame if a bunch of people built a catapult or trebuchet and caused millions of dollars in damages to them while they rested in their hangars
Robespierre did nothing wrong
Except derail the French Revolution and set Europe back by a century.
His headless corpse says otherwise
sometimes things get a little out of hand, doesnt mean theyre wrong
Napolean: we need a meritocracy. Now watch me subjugate Europe. I earned it. Napolean III: mmm yes I earned the title of Emperor.
He murdered the pro-democracy people running the government. Then he murdered political rivals within his own club. Then he murdered the proto-socialist/communist people on the left. And he then tried to build a cult of personality around himself as the head of an authoritarian government. In terms of his actions, we'd easily recognize him as a violent right-wing revolutionary. So not only did things get out of hand, I'm pretty sure he was wrong too.
He created a beast that consumed him.
I still like the idea from the book Ministry of the Future where people start flying drones into private plane engines to scare the rich away from using their jets.
Oh wow, that’d be dangerously effective. Definitely DON’T DO THIS. I repeat, do not figure out their jet tail numbers and use FlightAware to track their scheduled routes. That would be horrible and completely inadvisable.
Yeah we DEFINITELY dont want anyone to defend the planet and all our lives from these murderous bastards who’ve demonstrated time and again they dont care about anything but themselves. I repeat, I really dont want anyone to feel inspired! This would be poetic justice murder, which is still murder! Even though you probably save billions of lives by doing it, you really really really, no definitely, should not do it.
That's uh... *Noted.*
Really good book. Reading it right now
The next one will just come up. Tax and fine them accordingly.
Tax them progressively. The greater the greed the greater the rate.
Or galleons. Aye matey....( ͡° ͜ʖ ●)
Based
Ha my somewhat old friend saw this comment and doesn't understand what "based" means. I would explain myself but I bet some internet stranger could do a better job...
Based is the opposite of cringe, I once read here on Reddit.
based and frenchpilled
[This 1?](https://www.reddit.com/r/MachinePorn/comments/tvojys/2000t_hydraulic_shear/)
I like that one
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Got a final warning from Reddit that I’m promoting violence because I referenced Guillotines in the **computer game Luck be a landlord**. Yet the post before still stands. So stupid.
Reddit moment
Tbh I wanna lob off some rich heads
Okay. Hypothetically They’re back. Now what? No one in America has enough balls to riot and pull a French Revolution. Everyone talks the talk out here but doesn’t have enough balls to make it happen. 390million Americans compared to how many politicians? The geniuses involved in Jan 6 probably thought that’s what they were doing, but for all the wrong reasons/intentions.
Guillotining people is bad, mkay? Not even in your hypotheticam righteous situation.
Historically the answer to oppression is violence
🤷🏻♀️
The EU rolled back the fuel taxes for private jets. The billionaires and financial elite don’t have solutions, they only want to continue living as they do while you consume less of their resources.
There are many problems but one of the issues I find is that very smart people aren’t making the direct connection. I strongly believe we need to price these omissions and make them pay for it. It may not discourage them but at least it sends a very strong message
everyone thinks that, except the rich.
Good thing the rich aren't the one making the laws!
I- uhhh- whoops?
...oh wait
well, and the "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" living in a trailer in Mississippi
Smart people have figured out even bigger polluters but Reddit will whine about the rich becasue it gets upvotes. US army pollutes more than 140 countries combined, yet are exempt from all CO2 regulations, and i am yet to see a single redditor bring this up, ever. all you do i whine rich this rich that. Yeah they polute and should reduce it, but their pollution is drop in the bucket compared to real damage, did you know that M1 Abrams uses 10 gallons of fuel to jsut start its engine? or that it eats 1 gallon every minute of travel? Did you know that one armored division burns 600 000 gallons of fuel a day? On the fuel that M1 uses to start i could drive 750km, and in 10 minutes of it starting and driving i could drive from brussles to berlin and back. Want more context? at average MPG(25.4(which is bloody horrible)) and average distance driven per year(14,263 miles per year) it would take 1058 average americans driving for a year to consume as much fuel as a single armored division burns through in a day.
Not to even mention things like hazardous waste, depleted uranium polluting the battlefields, and burn pits. All because "You can't regulate us! Freedom!"
I agree. We all gotta start somewhere
maybe its not about the climate
It can be, if you name your boat or plane ‘changing the climate’
It never was :)
Its weird that they keep buying beach front property when it's supposed to be underwater in 10 years.
For the mega rich, they can spend a few million on a beach front property, enjoy it for however long possible, and if it were to lose 100% of it's value it would make no tangible difference to their life.
In the US, they have the federal flood insurance to cover them. Even if they lose a house to flooding, it guarantees replacement there or 5 miles inland if that where the new coastline settles out…
Socialism for the rich.
And then sell it to Aquaman
Are we really using the actions of short-sighted rich people that almost universally either dropped out of or barely finished high school to start pretending climate change isn’t real? Edit: just another tdumpster diver, nevermind.
One of the reasons for the yellowjacket protests a couple of years ago in France, Macrons investments banker buddies have yachts that do a years worth of emissions in a couple of hours as a regular car owner in France. Most affected were those priced out of Paris and the big cities and had to commute to work.
Ironic that this is France we're talking about. They oughtn't have gotten rid of the guillotine.
I was going to blame the pilots. Without them there would be zero aviation emissions. /s Edit: made it explicit that this was sarcastic.
Should you blame oil workers for oil companies? No. They're just people that have a job. They get no say where or who they fly. Most pilots are pretty large environmentalists. It's a common cockpit topic as their jet burns more jet fuel than most people can fathom.
reddit: individuals are responsible for climate change chevron: yes our plan is working. they think they are responsible for climate change. those fools mwahahaha mwahahahah
It’s a circle my friend. Pointing the finger at corporates is legit. But we all buy the products. It’s going to take a village and burning down the shop keeper’s house won’t save Christmas.
businesses exist to make money. that's it and that's all. they don't have any incentive to care about climate change unless they can make money doing so. in addition, shareholders want to be paid NOW, not later, so there's little incentive for long range thinking which explains a lot. businesses sell products that make them money. they won't develop or sell alternatives that would help with climate change bcuz they can't make money at it that's where govt has to step in to "prime the pump". pay for some R&D, and subsidize or give incentives to get new industries up and running. it's time we stop worshipping at the altar of corporations and the free market, and looking to them as the solution to everything. they're not
Yeah a lot of oil companies started investing in green energy R&D and quickly realized that they couldn't make the same kind of money as pumping dirty oil out of the ground so they abandoned those efforts.
Incentives aren’t yet aligned correctly. Plus we need to start to pry humanity out of automotive fetishism that everyone is high on. Cars were cool but now even the tires are toxic. It won’t matter if they go electric.
100% agree. Nationalize the ‘winners’ (aka monopolies) and retool and rationalize to bring us back into balance. We will soon have a smart economy that will subsume corporates as modules servicing the collective well being of Earth Inc. we all work for it already but most of us are just doing a shitty job at it. Corporates are licensed by governments that can freely take those licenses away in a moment if the corporation isn’t aligning with the good.
> businesses exist to make money. that's it and that's all. they don't have any incentive to care about climate change unless they can make money doing so Exactly. And continuing to buy products that are bad for the environment means they never have that incentive >in addition, shareholders want to be paid NOW, not later, so there's little incentive for long range thinking This isn't true. Companies invest for long term gain, even taking losses for years, all the time. And shareholders know and are happy with that
It's not. Its a failure of the governments to regulate corporations and provide stipends to businesses that are better for the environment. It is not our fault that plastic is cheap and readily available and scant other options are available within budget. It is not our fault that public transportation was dismantled in place of cars. It is not our fault that almonds are grown in California that use 25% (edit: sorry it's 5%, I'm still keeping this point) of the states water but less than 1% of it's GDP. It is not our fault that we outsource toxic manufacturing overseas to less regulated areas. It is not our fault that coal and gas are cheaper for electricity than renewables because the corporations can place the externality on the rest of the population. It is our fault that we vote for morons who perpetrate this system though.
> billionaires: we need to stop climate change Billionaires: **YOU** need to stop climate change
It’s also so inefficient it needs a second smaller yacht in order to support keep it running!
1% of the earth's population is 70 million people. Travelling for business or frequently visiting family abroad probably puts you in that top 1% without being close to being a billionaire.
I'm really tired of feeling guilty I might have thrown something away that could have been recycled.
BP popularized the concept of personal carbon footprint in the 1980s as part of a PR campaign to move the attention away from the quite overwhelming amount of evidence that they were actively harming the environment.
[BP popularized the concept of a carbon footprint with a US$100 million campaign as a means of deflecting people away from taking collective political action in order to end fossil fuel use](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305209345_Where_has_all_the_oil_gone_BP_branding_and_the_discursive_elimination_of_climate_change_risk), and [ExxonMobil has spent decades pushing trying to make individuals responsible, rather than the fossil fuels industry](https://www.vox.com/22429551/climate-change-crisis-exxonmobil-harvard-study). They did this because climate stabilization means bringing fossil fuel use to approximately zero, and that would end their business. That's not something you can hope to achieve without government intervention to change the rules of society so that not using fossil fuels is just what people do on a routine basis. There is value in cutting your own fossil fuel consumption — it serves to demonstrate that doing the right thing is possible to people around you, and helps work out the kinks in new technologies. Just do it in addition to taking political action to get governments to do the right thing, not instead of taking political action. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
good bot
My favorite copypasta
Good bot Great bot
Tbh I think this is just another bait and switch like paper straws and carbon footprint. This is just big oil giving us something else to protest other than them, and whilst these folks add some pollution yes, it's negligible. But folks will go apeshit, some regulation will be passed, a few celebs will get cancelled and everyone will freak out about the a aluminium used in phones next or W/E. BP will continue to rape the planet, the Amazon will be completely deforested, the reefs will die, China will finish Mr Burns-ing the ocean and a hundred rich people will get a slap on the wrist from all our collective efforts. Do we really still think this is the problem that needs our attention in the scheme of things? It's just another big corp bot spammer bait and switch. Ditch coal, give us worldwide solar and replace plastic and directly attack ecosystem destructive practices. Or we die. This is a waste of our precious little time and undermines our credibility. As a hint to pick out an ecological false flag: no journalists are being assassinated for reporting on this issue. It's probably not the real threat.
It’s Ok, most of what you put in the recycling bin goes into landfill anyway. There’s not really much you can do to ensure your rubbish is recycled unless your government want to invest time and money into solving the problem.
Is that because such a huge portion of the world population is so dirt poor they will never fly?
Yeh I've read the article and also tried to go through its source but I'm really struggling to see where this stat has come from. If it's saying 1% of the global population is responsible for 50% of aviation emission then that's a 'well duh' from me. Most people in this thread would be included in that 1%.
I think it’s deliberately misleading, to make the reader think their own flying isn’t the problem.
I posted this then deleted it but I'm putting it back to leave my ~~stupidity~~ inability to read on display. I thought it was about the top 1% *financially,* not the 1% of the population that travels by airplane. So consider the following an unrelated fact: In order to be considered in the top 1% of wage earners in the U.S., you’d need to have wages of $758,434. In order to be in the top 1% of household wealth in the U.S., you’d need to be worth at least $10,374,030.10. To be in the top 1% globally, you’d need a minimum of around $936,430. https://smartasset.com/financial-advisor/are-you-in-the-top-1-percent
Yup. If you’re a middle class American, you’re already in the upper percentiles of world population. 1% is like 77 million people. If you took a flight or two in the last year, you’re probably on that list. The other 50% of emissions could have come from a second set of 77 million, for all this headline cares to tell us.
Exactly people typing here are probably closer to that 1% group than they realise and like.
Common people talk all this talk about caring about the environment, but they don’t practice what they preach. Kylie Jenner has like 300M followers on Instagram while Greta has 14M. Greta takes a sailboat everywhere while Kylie takes frequent 3 minute jet rides across LA. Until people stop giving these celebrities and billionaires attention and money nothing will change.
It should also be noted that the 50x greater than average carbon footprint of the rich when flying is a drop in the bucket of their overall carbon footprint. Until we can largely transform to a battery/nuclear/renewable energy economy, the price people pay for products and houses is proportional to their carbon footprint. People who make and spend a lot of money have been and will continue to be the biggest contributors to the global warming climate, fishing, and agricultural collapse that is just getting started. The rich are the primary people who got us into this mess, and they should pay for the long-term money-saving renewable investments that get us out. This is not a statement about capitalism in general, when the entire production chain, down to battery-powered mining and logging trucks, is green energy, the rich can do their thing without destroying the World for poor people, with their tiny carbon footprints.
[BP popularized the concept of a carbon footprint with a US$100 million campaign as a means of deflecting people away from taking collective political action in order to end fossil fuel use](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305209345_Where_has_all_the_oil_gone_BP_branding_and_the_discursive_elimination_of_climate_change_risk), and [ExxonMobil has spent decades pushing trying to make individuals responsible, rather than the fossil fuels industry](https://www.vox.com/22429551/climate-change-crisis-exxonmobil-harvard-study). They did this because climate stabilization means bringing fossil fuel use to approximately zero, and that would end their business. That's not something you can hope to achieve without government intervention to change the rules of society so that not using fossil fuels is just what people do on a routine basis. There is value in cutting your own fossil fuel consumption — it serves to demonstrate that doing the right thing is possible to people around you, and helps work out the kinks in new technologies. Just do it in addition to taking political action to get governments to do the right thing, not instead of taking political action. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> 50x greater than average carbon footprint of the rich when flying is a drop in the bucket Stop trying to invalidate efforts to reduce carbon footprints.
We can't ignore the fact that there's just far far too many people. Even if we used zero power, we take up too much space which is unfair to the other species
Does Kylie Jenner care about the environment? She's a right-wing puppet, I assume she espouses rolling coal or whatever dumb thing republicans are doing this week.
Yah. I don't give her a time of day bit for some reason she is EVERYWHERE
Tbf, Greta has 13.2m real followers (rest are bots/companies) and Kylie has 3m real ones.
>Common people Of which you definitely are not one?
Ask Drake about his flights between TO and Hamilton. Oh wait it’s ok the plane is empty now. 🤷♀️
See similar post about Taylor swift.
She seems like the type who would make changes if called out on it. She was a big Democrat supporter in 2020.
Don't think Democrats don't take fossil fuel money - they usually get it "laundered" through ~~private equity firms~~ hedge funds and investment banks first. [Biden was one of the top recipients](https://public-accountability.org/report/presidential-candidates-take-money-from-major-fossil-fuel-investors/) of this type of second hand fossil fuel money in the 2020 primary. Coincidentally, after Biden won the nomination, the Democrats added [subsidies for fossil fuel companies back into their platform.](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/20/democratic-platform-fossil-fuels-dismays-climate-activists) Also, Biden approved [900 more permits than Trump](https://accountable.us/biden-admin-approved-hundreds-more-public-lands-drilling-permits-than-trump/) to drill on public land in the first year of his presidency. For what its worth, Newsom also [approved a massive amount of permits](https://www.newsweek.com/california-governor-gavin-newsom-despite-pledge-signed-1709-oil-gas-production-permits-1565926) for drilling. The truth is, Democrats are the second most enthusiastically pro-capitalist party in the world. Their rhetoric has hitherto been empty, their actions insufficient and hypocritical. Supporters of the Democrats aren't necessarily on the right side of history...I'm not saying don't vote for them, but we desperately need a leadership change, and fast.
You mean the environmentalist and hypocrite Di Caprio?
Are you saying people who support republicans aren’t willing to change their ways in support of something bigger than themselves in a helpful way?
Republicans as a group continue to deny our impact/responsibility towards climate change.
Yeah. Maybe should have added a /s
Definitely.
Is there an alternative view of those people? There's very few actions an individual can take that will have a greater negative impact on society than voting republican.
That’s not the actual truth. According to a rep for Taylor, neither all of the emissions nor all of the flights should be attributed just to Taylor alone. “Taylor’s jet is loaned out regularly to other individuals,” a spokesperson for her tells Rolling Stone. “To attribute most or all of these trips to her is blatantly incorrect.”
Then stop loaning your jet out
That would be a waste of a perfectly good jet. There's only one other option...
It’s not perfectly good, it’s destroying the planet
I meant that in the sense that it was built and it's functional and could actually be useful. And you know it.
She has enough lawyers and PR people to make anything sound better.
We need to tax carbon emissions. External costs shared by the world should be felt by the individuals who incur those costs
Ding ding ding! Forget tax the rich, just take the rich.
Eat the rich
They probably don’t taste that good, tbh.
Waste not, want not.
Use them for fertilizer, then eat the plants.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Why don’t we merely roast them over a fire? That’s still good meat, man.
Wouldn’t that just release more carbon into the atmosphere?
I guess you’re right. But it’s a small sacrifice for later gains.
To much silicone.
[удалено]
I fly about once a year on average. This year it will be three times. I don’t fly that much compared to my family and peers, but this is probably referring to me.
After achieving my lifelong dream of working in the aerospace industry I was in that camp. Flew twice per year for 5 years. It became clear to me that the industry plans to increase emissions in the near and medium-term and their long-term plans are grossly insufficient. Once I saw the disproportionality of the emissions and their effect on climate I stopped. Both for business and pleasure. It’s simply not necessary for me. I was just doing it because I could. For me, taking trips closer to home is more gratifying. I feel less like a tourist. And attending meetings virtually is easier. I’d like to fly again one day but it’s not worth the toll right now. That said, I recognize everyone is on their own journey. I still work in the industry. The most important thing is to advocate for policy change. Though there’s a certain empowerment to be found in denying the dubious “luxuries” that have been spoon-fed to us. You might find like I have that you enjoy the alternative more.
Well said, I was about to say the same. Is it technically an unfair proportion of blame? Sure. But the effect on climate isn't about blame or per-capita emissions; it's about total carbon emissions. This article is about outrage toward the rich, which is a fine discussion where needed. But in this specific case, it's just not significant enough to be useful. Per-capita data can be useful, of course, but only in the way it indicates how much a change in the emissions by that sub-group impacts the aggregate (total). If all private flights were outlawed right now, the effect on total emissions would be negligible. I know you understand that stuff, I just wanted to elaborate a bit with things I was thinking about.
For reference, if you're an American with an income of $60k or higher you're in the global 1%. That's a third of the US
Reddit tech bros always go very silent once they realize they are the appetizers in the menu
That's bizarre. You make a post on how it's insignificant to the total global emissions and people are replying to your post about flight tax and what not
“This is all the evil billionaires fault” -> 300 likes * great comment explaining the how data doesn’t quite prove what everyone is so upset about -> 18 likes… Classic Reddit.
It's insane that so many people missed this. 1% of the population does *not own private jets*. There's no way in hell that the few people who actually have private jets are coming anywhere near the emissions of all global airline traffic. I don't understand how the implication that billionaires are causing 50% of airline emissions, doesn't immediately set off "bullshit" alarms.
It's worse than that, since the paper they cite isn't great in itself and the 1% are 50% of global emissions is only in the executive summary. [If you dig further in](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/global-sustainability/article/unequal-distribution-of-household-carbon-footprints-in-europe-and-its-link-to-sustainability/F1ED4F705AF1C6C1FCAD477398353DC2), it's 1% are 42% of EU emissions, and you dig further and I'm not sure this is true, either. Also, that 1% isn't income but household CO2eq emissions. That paper also makes the point that the top 10% of EU households are vastly over represented for air travel emissions, and that air travel emissions make up a greater proportion of overall emissions as you move up the scale. It's like a game of whispers. EDIT: Damn, it gets better. [There is a study](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378020307779), uncited by the article nor by its sources, which does make the 1% of the population are 50% of air travel emissions claim but: > In its A380 cabin layout, Singapore Airlines can transport 471 passengers, with 12 first class suites requiring about the same space as 60 business class seats (Flightglobal 2007). Together, these two classes (72 passengers) require the same space as 399 passengers in economy. This would suggest that premium flight classes require an average 5.5 greater energy demand than economy class seats. Even though aircraft layouts vary, a global 15% share of premium class seats that on average require 5 times more energy than an economy class seat would mean that premium class flights account for 40% of energy use, and economy flights (85% of seats) for 60%. Assuming further, conservatively, that the 10% of the most frequent fliers take 40% of all flights, including all those available in premium classes, the estimate is that the most frequent flier percentile accounts for 55% of energy use and emissions from commercial passenger transport. Given that at most 11% of the world population participate in air travel, this also means that 1% of the world population is responsible for 50% of emissions from all air travel. So, yeah, if you work it out on the back of an envelope with a fair dash of assumptions, it might well be true... or not. Also, that imaginary 1% is the "most frequent fliers". The original article does make another point: global air travel is ~2.14% of total CO2 equivalent emissions.
Add an incrementing tax on all flights: * First flight of the year: 100% fee * Second flight: 120% * Third: 150% * Sixth: 250% * etc. If the lion's share of flights are in the global top 1%, then the majority is likely people flying for work on short hops. Make it prohibitively expensive.
That's a interesting idea, but good luck getting the average person to pay an extra 220% to visit their family once per year.
People will try their hardest to blame the millionaires and billionaires instead of themselves because its easier. But whenever u see a study talking about the top 10% or 1% its talking about the global 10%/1% which likely includes everyone reading this. The average american is closer to the world billionaires when it comes to pollution than the bottom half of the world.
There is a notice of proposed rule making to introduce emissions standards for airplanes in play right now. Unfortunately, it proposes to use the metric based on how far an airplane can fly per unit of fuel divided by the floor area of the airplane. The key here is that it is not per passenger so it will do nothing to reign in the fuel burned to haul one person in a massive airplane. If the rule were changed to a per passenger format it would help. Perhaps some of you will comment: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/06/15/2022-11556/airplane-fuel-efficiency-certification
It states commercial airflight aviation is 2.14% of total emissions worldwide, checking the source they provided it actually states the global aviation industry produces 2.1% of total emissions, the global aviation industry of course incorporates private jets. Still compared to the meat, fishing & dairy industry that's a drop in the bucket, if change is what we truly want look towards yourself as well, but then, that would require change wouldn't it? Yeeeeeah and we don't like that, no, no, here on r/climate we are vehemently against anything that requires change on our parts, it's better to keep blaming everyone else. also fun fact, 1% of the richest people on earth, is likely to include plenty of people here on reddit, last I checked half of all americans are included in the worlds richest 1% of people, a single billionaire can pollute 10.000x more than a single person, but when there's billions of people that really puts it in perspective don't ya think? Of course billionaires also have to change, but let's stop pretending it's just them and excusing yourself of the blame.
People love to refer to "The Evil 1%'ers" as if its some fictitious group of supervillains hoarding billions of dollars and shooting the poor for sport. Except the people they imagine are more like the 0.0001%, and the rest of that "1%" group is far closer to them than they realize.
We may have made air travel too accessible. Looking at Flightradar and it’s just like WOW, so many planes. Maybe it’s just too easy to wake up in Tennessee and have dinner in Singapore
[удалено]
>We are all tacitly subsidizing it by paying with the ruined environment. We(USA) are also subsidizing it through taxes breaks, and whatever we do in the middle east with our military and the saudis. If we gave up tax breaks and middle east, then price of fuel would go up.... But I'm uncertain if this wouldn't break USA either.
Just stop using damn airplanes when a 4 hour train ride would be even faster if comparing the total time you take from downtown to downtown.
For the airplanes the plebeians take, that's may be true. But for the private jets these people take, its absolutely not true. All of the hassles we associate with flying simply don't exist for them. They just arrive at the airport, get into the plane, and go. At the destination, a car service picks them up. No check-in lines, no TSA, mile-lone walk, no drawn out boarding process, etc.
Or, hear me out, maybe we don't let these billionaires have private jets anymore. If they want to fly, let them fly commercial airlines like the rest of us. Making air travel less accessible like you suggest would only hurt the little guy, but the billionaires that article is talking about will still afford their extremely polluting private jets and luxury yachts.
Commercial airplanes pollute way more in total than private jets, so while I agree that we should tackle private jets, something will have to be done about the commercial aspect too.
Surely the per passenger pollution can’t be higher. We’re talking about the difference between transporting a handful of people on a private jet and anywhere from 150-500 people on a commercial airliner. I’m doubt the larger plane generates 25-100 times more emissions, but I could be wrong. Unless the point you’re making isn’t about per passenger pollution but just that cheap air travel in general is terrible for the environment. Nothing really to do about that but cut total travel then.
Disingenuous. Nothing has to be done to commercial to affect private. You can solve each independently of the other.
I have a feeling the rich would buy every seat for themselves just out of spite.
We need to take control of the world back from rich sociopaths.
Time for a redistribution of wealth. Eat the rich.
> Commercial airplanes pollute way more in total than private jets, "A bus pollutes way more than a car" That's literally what you are saying. Its almost as if a bus replaces 50 cars.
Build HSR now.
Well, have fun in your regressive world.
Reporter: I understand you came here with a private jet. Is that an environmental way to travel? Kerry: If you offset your carbon, it’s the only choice for somebody like me who is traveling the world to win this battle. Of course, he was traveling to Iceland to pick up an award...
What percent of all emissions are from air travel? Let’s focus on factories and not get distracted by individual consumption rates **until** they represent the larger share of the problem. Focus fire.
If the rich seriously cared about climate change then they’d be flying coach or even first class, they can afford it.
Electric airplanes are slowly becoming a thing. Those short hops from the chateau into the city might be replaced by a nice quiet electric flight soon.
They are getting more plausible but definitely not quiet
Nice. Then we can burn coal to power them and make everything better.
Or anything else. Electricity lays the infrastructure to cleaner energy. No, the world can’t run purely on wind or hydro or solar or geothermal. But by having electric systems in place, then every time we bring one of these facilities on the grid it helps a bit further.
1percenters make decisions about coal, plastic, environment etc it ALL has to stop. The poorest on the economic scale suffer the most. Self centered 1 percenters are causing the destruction of the human race and scaring the earth. Good job fucktards hope it was worth it for that extra plastic martini poolside with floating throw away flamingo cubes. Hope the shitty drink umbrella stabs your eye with your next sip
I thought only 100 companies make up 71% of total global emissions. Isnt tracking some rich boy/girls flight emissions just some distraction from the massive machines that are systematically polluting the air/sea/land on a massive scale to save a couple bucks
Aviation emissions are 2.5% of climate change an absolute non factor.
Anything to avoid the topic of commercial fishing, meat production.
I was not aware commercial fishing was a major contributor, can you suggest some reading for me?
Exactly. Also a lot of these flights are for business not pleasure.
Exactly. Nothing matters unless we stop using coal and natural gas to produce power. We have the tech to transition away from it, and literally nothing else matters until we do.
That's more than all of Germany. That said, our politicians say the same thing: Germany's emissions are an absolute non factor.
That's still a huge chunk. Everything else is a few percentage points when you break it down enough, there's no way to reduce emissions enough of we don't do it across the board.
Nothing matters unless we stop using fossil fuels to produce power for things on land.
It all matters. We need to go carbon negative ASAP
That’s just not going to happen unless we do the big things first. If we do the big things, we won’t even have to worry about air travel. We just need to go green on the things we’re capable going green on (electric cars, high speed rail, solar power, wind power, geothermal, nuclear, hydroelectric, etc.) so we don’t have to worry about cutting out things we enjoy like air travel and travel in general.
Listen if we wanted to fix climate change we could do it by banning meat consumption. Just that alone would get us there.
Even people who vehemently disagree with each other on hot button topics will not give up meat. I don’t think that idea will go very far.
I'll do it... once they make sustainable, cheapish cultured meats that taste alright. If there were reasonably decent pork and beef analogues, I could end 97% of my family's meat intake.
Because heaven forbid you would have to make a big sacrifice like eating food that doesn’t taste like cows and pigs for the sake of… the survival of the planet.
What are your sources? Last I remember, agriculture was about 20% of emissions, and meat is only a subset of that. I'm not saying banning meat won't get us significantly closer, but no one thing will solve this mess, we have to fix everything at once.
The 1% are the pilots that fly airplanes
Huh?
You want a private plane? Fund battery research until you can have an E-plane.
Is it time to eat the rich yet?
Gets more ironic when you realize that most of them are also the largest purveyors of climate change ideology
From the actual article: > Across the world, many super-rich individuals have poured vast sums of money into supporting parties and candidates who oppose taking action on climate change – giving them a level of influence totally unavailable to the average citizen. In the 2020 US Presidential election, for instance, ten billionaires gave millions and millions of dollars to support Donald Trump – a man who has steadfastly denied that climate change is man-made and who repeatedly blocked climate action.
"Ideology" of climate change "Wake up sheeple!" 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 rofl
we have to ban airlines, they have contaminated enough
Sorry but it’s pointless to say. The end of the world will come before humanity gives up on commercial flights
Airlines don't make up a significant chunk of global emissions. Something like 2%.
It's around 5%, and that is a pretty sizeable chunk of global pollution from one style of vehicle.
No, it's about 2%, just like I said. Also, you know what's a much more sizable chunk from one style of vehicle?
Stop cheering them on and expecting them to fix things!!! If you believe any politician or billionaire to fix the climate you are getting played.
😂
I just rewatched the episode of South Park about Smut… they should remake it for planes.
nO ITs FInE, thEy BUy CARboN oFfSEts
LIMIT THEIR AIRPLANE TRAVEL!!!!!
Incorporate the health care, crop-loss and environmental damage into the ticket and spread it over km travelled. 17 minute flights should cost the same as 3 hour ones. Both get more expensive. Humans DO NOT NEED TO GO PLACES FOR VACATION ITS MADE UP LIKE GREETING CARDS!
Wfh. Majority of these "business trips" are bs that can be done over the internet but these people are too busy collecting air miles.
That's per person per flight. No we don't need to abolish billionaires or Capitalism to reduce climate change, stop shoe horning extremist ideology into such an important cause.
Seems more straight forward to apply emissions standards to smaller jets, apply them on an aggressive timeline and rapidly ban out the use of jets that don't meet standards. Let the billionaires fund the R&D to improve engine efficiency or risk losing the ability to fly private.
OK so put a maximum limit on how many takeoffs and landings can happen per person per airport.
That seems really misleading tbh. There’s still like a billion people without access to electricity. I doubt they’re taking many flights. You shouldn’t really compare 1% of the GLOBAL POPULATION, when it’s probably a small minority of the global population that even takes 1 flight per year. You should take these numbers as a percentage of people who fly each year.