14 ms·
1500 Private Jets Fly to Davos for Climate Talks
- m52go 8y ago> There appears to be a trend towards larger aircraft, with expensive heavy jets the aircraft of choice > This is partly due to the long distances travelled, he said, “but also possibly due to business rivals not wanting to be seen to be outdone by one another” I don't think we can expect anything substantive coming of a meeting like this. Has anything ever?
- minitel 8y agoWhat normally comes from such meetings are policies aimed at curbing the consumption of the 80% of the population who control 20% of the resources. The upper 20% of the population (who control 80% of the resources) are very good at sparing themselves from hardship.
- dingaling 8y agoOne part of his statement is fact ( long ranges necessitate large aircraft ) and the other is conjecture. There was only one 747 in attendance, from UAE. Then some Boeing BBJs, one Tu-204 and and then lots of Falcons / Gulfstreams / Globals. If image was important then BBJs would have been the minimum.
- mudil 8y agoAl Gore and Leonardo Di Caprio fly private jets all the time. Not sometimes, but always and very often. This is equivalent of Mahatma Gandhi driving among the people in the Rolls Royce to deliver his message!
- ceejayoz 8y ago1. No, it's not. 2. "Vintage Rolls Royce which seated Mahatma Gandhi and Queen of England fetches $705,300" http://luxurylaunches.com/transport/vintage_rolls_royce_which_seated_mahatma_gandhi_and_queen_of_england_fetches_705300.php http://luxurylaunches.com/transport/vintage_rolls_royce_whic...
- mudil 8y agoYes, it is. He was bare foot. Sure, he was seated in the RR with Queen, but that was a special circumstance, most likely part of politicking, and not his modus operandi. But for Al Gore and Leonardo, it’s their way of life.
- makerofspoons 8y agoThe solution should include a carbon tax or fee to make such behavior uneconomical. Could Switzerland impose a carbon fee upon landing a private aircraft at a Swiss airport?
- dragonwriter 8y agoWell, since presumably the aircraft need to fly out, the simple thing would just be to tax fuel based on carbon emissions from burning it.
- _red 8y agoOnly the lower-class believe that "carbon taxes" are intended to stop global warming. Everyone above that, certainly in the Davos Private Equity set, understand its just a chance to create a supranational currency using something other than income taxes/bonds as its credit/debit method. Its silly to suggest Switzerland do something like that: Why make it more difficult for this to happen?
- lagadu 8y agoWhy would Switzerland effectively offer a negative incentive towards people holding conferences there? Are you advocating that they should make attending climate conferences become more expensive and harder to attend?
- makerofspoons 8y agoNo, I'm proposing that they encourage more eco-friendly alternatives that also make attending the conference cheaper such as telecommuting or using rail.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 8y agoAs if the cost of traveling to Davos was a problem for people who fly private jets... Edit: the idea isn't to tax air travel to death, but to have a sufficient level of tax so that ordinary citizens can accept the environmental taxes that they must pay on polluting activities (some of which they can't avoid -- e.g commuting to work which is a necessity, contrary to fly private jets).
- rhcom2 8y agoAlso: "Just 90 companies caused two-thirds of man-made global warming emissions" https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20/90-companies-man-made-global-warming-emissions-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20/90-compa... Individual behavior obviously matters but it's a drop in the bucket compared to corporate polluters.
- organsnyder 8y agoAren't the customers of those companies also culpable?
- rthomas6 8y agoYES. I really dislike the insinuation that all those companies could voluntarily change their behavior and stay in business. There's no incentive for them to eat the cost of that negative externality, and their competition would immediately come along and take their customers by offering the same products at a cheaper price. We are the ones buying the cheap crap. It's cheap, we want it, so we buy it. Those companies might be enabling us, but if they didn't provide it, another one would step in. This is why regulation is so important vs. pure advocacy and technology solutions. Consumers are buying things without paying for the harm that product inflicts on the environment.
- IdiocyInAction 8y agoAbsolutely. The reality is, if people actually cared, they could do a lot by not consuming as much. But they do not and we have to act appropriately.
- Synaesthesia 8y agoWe need systemic change because there’s demand for what these companies are producing. For example there can be subsidies, or at least an end to oil subsidies!
- chrisco255 8y agoAre there oil subsidies? I thought there was a Federal tax on gas...the opposite of subsidies?
- misiti3780 8y agoIf they really cared, the most environmentally friendly way to hold Davos would be over video conference
- SlowRobotAhead 8y agoIf only we had some way of communicating across long distances...
- mbreedlove 8y agoah, yes, carrier pigeon!
- jakobegger 8y agoI don't feel that articles like that contribute to the discussion in a meaningful way. Sure it's fun to point out that politicians are all hypocrits, but it doesn't help anybody at all. There are two possibilities: a) Private Jets are an important source of pollution. Then we should complain about private jets all the time, not just when we want to smear the people who use them to travel to climate talks. b) Or private Jets are not really that much of an issue on a global scale, and we should focus on whatever is actually discussed at Davos, rather than complain about how people get there. The article makes no effort to quantify, or put into relation, the actual impact of people travelling with private jets, so I really don't see what it brings to the table, except triggering a bit of outrage here and there.
- throw564d 8y agoUntil the elites change, why should we?
- ForHackernews 8y agoBecause you want your to avoid your grandchildren starving to death in a famine or being killed in the water wars of 2075?
- throw564d 8y agoNorthern latitudes will be less affected.
- ForHackernews 8y agoHundreds of millions in the southern latitudes will (understandably) move north.
- throw564d 8y agoThank God for Brexit
- 8y ago
- jellicle 8y agoI guess we're going to do this every year now. Like last year: if the politicians gathered at this conference agree and do anything - literally anything at all - to combat climate change that they wouldn't have done otherwise, the effect of their plane flights will be dwarfed by whatever thing, no matter how tiny, they agreed to do. "Leaders working on world hunger problem ate lunch, exacerbating problem" "Leaders working on global clean water drank three pitchers of water" "President says we need to reduce CO2 emissions, but attended Boy Scout Jamboree where marshmallows were toasted" All of this is "I am very intelligent" territory. https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha
- SlowRobotAhead 8y agoLet me know when leaders working on global hunger ban GMOs then set crops on fire. Because that's the closer example to 1500 private jets flying to around to meet about climate change.
- FireBeyond 8y ago> agree and do anything - literally anything at all - to combat climate change In many cases, they really don't. Or they agree to worse things in "exchange" for positive things. That's the irony.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago> "Leaders working on world hunger problem ate lunch, exacerbating problem" > "Leaders working on global clean water drank three pitchers of water" In both of those scenarios, the goal is to make it possible so everybody can do those things. The leaders working on world hunger, want everybody to be able to eat lunch like them. The leaders working on global clean water want everybody to be able to drink 3 pitchers of water without having to worry if they will get sick. The leaders at the climate conference are discussing policies that would encourage/mandate that fewer people took plan trips, and that private jets were more expensive to fly.
- mikeash 8y agoThe end goal for fighting climate change is to have everything running on renewable energy so that we can all enjoy plane trips without screwing up the planet.
- NickM 8y agoThis kind of finger pointing really misses the forest for the trees. I know it's popular to hate on the global elite and jump all over their hypocrisy at any opportunity, but we need to take a long, hand look at ourselves for a minute. There are no headlines right now proclaiming outrage over the number of people flying private jets to go on fancy vacations, but tons of headlines about people flying jets to this climate talk. It's crazy and irrational for us to scream about people using private jets for events that are trying to help the world but then ignore all the selfish personal uses of private jets that are constantly happening for more frivolous reasons. The outcome of talks like these is tremendously important if we want to address climate change; if allowing people to spend a little extra jet fuel will help encourage better attendance and ensure the attendees feel refreshed and sharp when they arrive, then that seems like an okay tradeoff to me. The extra CO2 being emitted here really is a tiny drop in the bucket. EDIT: Judging by the silent downvotes, I guess people would rather just cling to their blind outrage than think critically about their own reactions to these things. Disappointing.
- eric_b 8y agoUnpopular Opinion: There is no viable solution to climate change through policy or political action. No one wants to give up their own personal comfort or lifestyle for the sake of "the planet." Even people I know who are self-described ardent environmentalists still fly in planes frequently to all manner of touristy destinations so they can keep "collecting experiences." Shit, look at Paris. They champion this climate accord and the minute the government raises taxes on fuel to help pay for some the policies, the people riot and destroy things and the government backs down. The only "solution" to climate change, if you can call it that, is through technology and adaptation. As the Earth warms and the waters rise, people will need to move, and we will need to create new technology to ensure our agricultural production doesn't lessen and we can keep feeding people. Honestly I don't really think it's gonna get all Mad Max/Extinction Level Event, but who knows, it might!
- bryanlarsen 8y agoThere's a pretty simple, viable solution. Carbon taxes. Yes, it's hard to get 195 countries to agree to implement a carbon tax, but you could have said the same thing about the ozone layer / CFC problem.
- rtkwe 8y agoThe solutions are all out there the issue goes even beyond getting the taxes in place to begin with, they have to be left in place even as they cost people money. CFCs were easier because it's a little esoteric and didn't actually change that much for people in their day to day life (helps that there were good enough replacements available for cheap). Carbon taxes on the other hand to work have to hurt enough to change behavior which will make them very unpopular.
- dekken_ 8y agoSimple yes. viable, no. Tyrannical, yes.
- jakewins 8y agoThe problem with carbon taxes is that they are regressive. Carbon taxation plays out as a consumption tax on goods people consume in roughly the same quantities independent of income. Take fuel as an example. The average american adult consumes about 550 gallons of gas a year for driving. It doesn't matter substantially how wealthy you are - there are only so many hours in the day to drive. A $20/Metric Ton CO2eq carbon tax means a fuel price increase of 0.18c/gal, or about $100 a year per person. So we'd expect to see consumers either pay this additonal 18c to keep driving on gas, or some close equivalent cost if they find a competitive renewable fuel at this new price point. So: - If you are at the 10th income percentile, you make $11/hr and society now expects 9 hours of labor from each adult in your household a year to pay for energy transition - If you are at the 90th income percentile, you make $29/hr, society expects you to work 3.4hrs a year to pay for transition. This makes carbon taxation, and related schemes like gas taxes, politically unpopular. See for instance yellow vest protests in France, where gas taxation was a key issue. ---- Incomes: https://www.bls.gov/oes/oes_perc.htm https://www.bls.gov/oes/oes_perc.htm Carbon tax -> fuel cost: http://www.rff.org/blog/2017/calculating-various-fuel-prices-under-carbon-tax http://www.rff.org/blog/2017/calculating-various-fuel-prices... Fuel consumption: https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/01/14/heres-how-much-gasoline-the-average-american-consu.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/01/14/heres-how-much-gas...
- DougN7 8y agoThis is such a beautiful example. We all want change, but giving up modern conveniences is so hard. We might mock the people and their private planes but I don’t doubt someone would mock me for my cars, central air conditioning, etc.
- walrus01 8y agoAir conditioning, at least, is a natural to pair with large grid connected photovoltaic setups. The times of the day when you'll have the heaviest AC compressor motor/fan motor load in watts is also when the sun is up. Look an hourly demand curve chart for a central air conditioned house in Sacramento in mid summer, vs watt-hours produced during the same hours of the same day by a rooftop 10kW size pv system.
- rb808 8y agoSounds like you dont live in Florida. :)
- athenot 8y agoMeaning that even when the Sun is no longer shining, the dewpoint is so high that what might have been a comfortable temperature with a breeze is actually felt as oppressively hot and will cause all sorts of fun mold growing in the home. In the Southeast, AC is also about dehumidifying the air.
- Iwan-Zotow 8y ago> The times of the day when you'll have the heaviest AC compressor motor/fan motor load in watts is also when the sun is up. Not quite true, actually. Shifted by few hours.
- mattlondon 8y agoI thought to myself: "Someone who cared could probably have got a train from most of Europe to Davos!" Then I thought about the sort of people that go to these things, and how long the train takes. They're oh so terribly important (sarcasm), that they simply cannot afford the time lost by traveling in anything other than a jet. And that I think is the problem - from the Davos-attendee right down to you and I with our cars + central heating/air-con: we all want things to improve, but we also all value (consciously or otherwise) our own comfort/time/convenience more "Well OF COURSE most people should take the train to Davos. Absolutely! Its the climate friendly choice! I had to take a jet though because I am very busy."
- mac01021 8y agoThe World Economic Forum in Davos is not just about Climate. In fact most of the topics discussed are not. It is not clear from this article that most of the attendees are even pretending to be concerned with global warming. So, while this is certainly tragic, the act is not as hypocritical, nor as obviously ironic, as The Guardian would like us to think.
- tcarver 8y agoOnly posting because it seems some people have not spotted why this story resonated so much: it epitomises a certain view of Davos - the rich and famous, meeting to discuss problems they imagine themselves disproportionately able to address, seemingly oblivious to their own disproportionate role in causing the problems in the first place (surely it's beyond debate that anyone flying a private jet has a disproportionately large carbon footprint?).
- ykevinator 8y agoThe people are ready, the conservatives don't recognize the problem.
- slowmovintarget 8y agoThat's because the Climate Talks aren't about the climate. 1500 private jets flew to Davos so their passengers could ensure a good crisis doesn't "go to waste."