• SCB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    while Taylor Swift flies her private jet to Italy to get a gelato.

    That would have a negligible impact on climate change

    • mindfive@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Almost everyone has a negligible impact when taken individually, that’s no excuse. Flying is terrible, private jets even more so.

      • Pipoca@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Everyone has a negligible impact as an individual, yes.

        But people act as groups, responding to the incentives given to them. There’s a reason why the average person in Houston drives a lot more than the average person in Amsterdam. It’s because Houston has the widest freeway in the world and is very car-oriented, and Amsterdam has world-class bike infrastructure and is very walkable and transitable. It’s not because Amsterdam is filled with virtuous environmentalists while Houston is filled with evil people who hate the planet.

        And as groups, people add up. In the US, 58% of transportation emissions are from cars, SUVs and pickups, while only 2% are from non- commercial planes. On the personal level, private jets are terrible. Added up to a societal level, they’re a tiny part of the problem, while cars are a giant part of the problem.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        All human air traffic combined is 2% of emissions. A private jet is not a big deal.

        Calling out private jets from rich people is a conservative tactic to make wealthy people who advocate for climate policy look like hypocrites. It’s a nonsensical position that was never intended to be thought through. It’s a kneejerk slogan for the boomer hordes.

        • mindfive@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          But it’s actually a problem. It measures whole percentage points, it’s not a rounding error.

          Dismissing an issue or person because conservatives are also using it as a punching bag doesn’t remove the problem, it just lets the conservatives control the narrative. I don’t think participating in that polarizing behavior is good or useful.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s all air travel. All.

            100,000 flights and 6 million people every day. A private jet is a drop in the bucket.

            • mindfive@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Arguing semantics? All flights are equal? A loaded a380 is just like a 6 passenger Lear?

              If we argue that someone should take the bus or bike instead of drive, isn’t this the same argument?

              • SCB@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                No, because the intent is to reduce aggregate demand. One person’s life choices are completely irrelevant, but when you spread ideas like ride-sharing, public transport, and walking/biking, the goal is for many people to choose one or more of those options regularly.

                Long after we have carbon taxes, planes will still be flying.

                Do the math on one person flying alone on a Lear jet while running a lawnmower for fun just to pollute a little extra, vs 6 million other people taking 100,000 flights. Or don’t, because the math should be quite obvious.

                • mindfive@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It’s not one person though, there are more private jets than commercial airliners. This thread started with the declaration that taking needless private flights over the Atlantic is negligible and we shouldn’t bother expressing frustration or ire that they continue.

                  I never said we should stop flights, just that we can criticize irresponsible usage of it. Why is that such a sticking point here?

                  • SCB@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Because that argument only exists, only ever existed, to chip away at the credibility of wealthy people who are putting actual effort into fighting climate change

            • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Totally did: And you’re annoying.

              Oxfam’s research found that the emissions from the investments of 125 billionaires averaged 3.1m tonnes per billionaire. This is more than a million times higher than the average emissions created by the bottom 90% of the world’s population.

              • Pipoca@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                Notice:

                emissions from the investments of 125 billionaires averaged 3.1m tonnes per billionaire

                Not

                emissions from the private jets of 125 billionaires averaged 3.1m tonnes per billionaire

                This isn’t billionaires directly producing emissions from their private jets or yachts.

                This is Bill Gates having a diversified portfolio that includes owning a bunch of BP, accounting the emissions caused by people buying gas from BP and then driving around to BP, and the accounting whatever percentage of BP that the Gates Foundation owns to Bill Gates.

                What exactly is your solution to the problem of Bill Gates owning some percentage of BP without making regular people emit any less? After all, getting people to drive less before zeroing out Bill Gates’s emissions is apparently “putting the cart before the horse”.

                • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Who owns the private jets?

                  Billionaires

                  I was foolish to think that inference was a faculty available to readers.

                  • Pipoca@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Billionaires generate obscene amounts of carbon pollution with their yachts and private jets – but this is dwarfed by the pollution caused by their investments,” said Oxfam International’s inequality policy adviser Alex Maitland.

                    The problem isn’t the yachts or private jets, or who owns them.

                    The problem identified in the article is that Exxon and BP sell a shitload of fossil fuels, and Bill Gates owns over a billion dollars of shares in fossil fuel companies like BP. The private jets are a red herring, regardless of who owns them.

              • SCB@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                So, per your quote, nothing about private planes, but rather the same tired rehash that certain lines of business produce more greenhouse gases.

                • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It’s right there:

                  Analysis by Oxfam and US researchers of their luxury purchases, which include superyachts, private jets, cars, helicopters and palatial mansions, combined with the impact of their financial investments and shareholdings reveals that they account for almost 17m tonnes of CO2 and equivalent greenhouse gas emissions annually.

                  In the article you told me to read.

                  • SCB@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    impact of their financial investments and shareholdings reveals

                    This is the relevant (and stupid) part of the article. You can tell, because when they elaborate, they focus on these investments. None of their accounting works otherwise.

                    Not sure what you’re trying to prove but you’re just making yourself look silly.

                    A private jet produces a meaningless amount of CO2 in the grand scheme of things. This is inarguable, because math exists.

                    Copied from another of my comments

                    All human air traffic combined is 2% of emissions. A private jet is not a big deal.

                    Calling out private jets from rich people is a conservative tactic to make wealthy people who advocate for climate policy look like hypocrites. It’s a nonsensical position that was never intended to be thought through. It’s a kneejerk slogan for the boomer hordes.

                    See when I said “read the article” I meant more than the first sentence.