3 ms·

How about we put a ban on UN officials’ private jets first?

sanxiyn 7y ago
That's a good idea, but eating less meat is even better, because that can reduce 8Gt CO2/yr. Banning private jets would not reduce 8Gt CO2/yr. It is important to be quantitative here.
danieldk 7y ago
Sorry, but this is really cheap criticism that detracts from the main point. Of course, their private jets (if they have them) should be banned, sure. But this is an invisible blip on the radar compared to the climate impact of the meat industry (or air travel in general). Such messages only cause people to postpone the need to take real action. And we need to take real action now if we even want a chance to dampen the effects of climate change (let alone reverse it).
- throwaway3957 7y ago
  > But this is an invisible blip on the radar compared to the climate impact of the meat industry Me eating meat is an even smaller blip, why bother with taking my meat away? The truth is that you have to lead also by example or you’re not credible.
  - sanxiyn 7y ago
    No one is taking your meat away. The most plausible implementation is to make meat slightly more expensive. People do respond to incentives. People with strong meat preference (like you seem to be) can continue to eat meat, but people with marginal meat preference will switch.
fat-chunk 7y ago
While the aviation industry, and as you point out low capacity flights in particular, is a major perpetrator for high CO2 emissions, the food industry is the number one area where your average consumer can make a big impact. I agree with you that governing bodies should be putting more pressure on the excesses of the wealthy and on industry, but changing industry practices and consumer behaviour are not mutually exclusive, especially when we should be doing everything we can on all fronts to overcome this crisis.
SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
Makes sense as long as the following assumptions are true: 1. UN officials are traveling by private jet 2. Private jets are worse for the environment than the meat industry I presume you have evidence of the above that lead to your suggestion?
_Microft 7y ago
Why? The emissions of a few individuals can be far higher than sustainable and it can still give a net-positive effect when their influence on society is great enough.
- vinay427 7y ago
  If their higher emissions aren't at least indirectly necessary for their high influence on society, then while it may be sustainable and net-positive, it isn't necessary justifiable because better options exist. People with a "high influence on society," however that's measured, can't just do whatever they want because their existence is still net-positive.
  - _Microft 7y ago
    The emissions were of course work related in that argument. Think Mrs. Merkel going to a climate summit vs. someone going to the same place to take a selfie for their followers.
    - vinay427 7y ago
      Yes, I know they're work related. I'm raising the point that the emissions may or may not be necessary for their positive influence on society. For instance, I think we'd have a hard time substantiating a claim that people only use private jets when the added productivity (or satisfaction, comfort, etc.) increases their positive influence by an amount proportional to the extra emissions of their private jet flight compared to a normal commercial passenger flight.
benp44 7y ago
Because this isn't the problem. In fact your defensive reaction is much more representative of the problem: that people find it so hard to accept that in order to avoid their children's lives being significantly worse than the lives we enjoy today, they may have give up a few fking burgers

That's a good idea, but eating less meat is even better, because that can reduce 8Gt CO2/yr. Banning private jets would not reduce 8Gt CO2/yr. It is important to be quantitative here.

danieldk 7y ago

Sorry, but this is really cheap criticism that detracts from the main point. Of course, their private jets (if they have them) should be banned, sure. But this is an invisible blip on the radar compared to the climate impact of the meat industry (or air travel in general). Such messages only cause people to postpone the need to take real action. And we need to take real action now if we even want a chance to dampen the effects of climate change (let alone reverse it).

throwaway3957 7y ago
> But this is an invisible blip on the radar compared to the climate impact of the meat industry Me eating meat is an even smaller blip, why bother with taking my meat away? The truth is that you have to lead also by example or you’re not credible.
- sanxiyn 7y ago
  No one is taking your meat away. The most plausible implementation is to make meat slightly more expensive. People do respond to incentives. People with strong meat preference (like you seem to be) can continue to eat meat, but people with marginal meat preference will switch.

fat-chunk 7y ago

While the aviation industry, and as you point out low capacity flights in particular, is a major perpetrator for high CO2 emissions, the food industry is the number one area where your average consumer can make a big impact. I agree with you that governing bodies should be putting more pressure on the excesses of the wealthy and on industry, but changing industry practices and consumer behaviour are not mutually exclusive, especially when we should be doing everything we can on all fronts to overcome this crisis.

SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago

Makes sense as long as the following assumptions are true: 1. UN officials are traveling by private jet 2. Private jets are worse for the environment than the meat industry I presume you have evidence of the above that lead to your suggestion?

_Microft 7y ago

Why? The emissions of a few individuals can be far higher than sustainable and it can still give a net-positive effect when their influence on society is great enough.

vinay427 7y ago
If their higher emissions aren't at least indirectly necessary for their high influence on society, then while it may be sustainable and net-positive, it isn't necessary justifiable because better options exist. People with a "high influence on society," however that's measured, can't just do whatever they want because their existence is still net-positive.
- _Microft 7y ago
  The emissions were of course work related in that argument. Think Mrs. Merkel going to a climate summit vs. someone going to the same place to take a selfie for their followers.
  - vinay427 7y ago
    Yes, I know they're work related. I'm raising the point that the emissions may or may not be necessary for their positive influence on society. For instance, I think we'd have a hard time substantiating a claim that people only use private jets when the added productivity (or satisfaction, comfort, etc.) increases their positive influence by an amount proportional to the extra emissions of their private jet flight compared to a normal commercial passenger flight.

benp44 7y ago

Because this isn't the problem. In fact your defensive reaction is much more representative of the problem: that people find it so hard to accept that in order to avoid their children's lives being significantly worse than the lives we enjoy today, they may have give up a few fking burgers