8 ms·
That and it's also the most wasteful use of fuel, because you're lifting an entire jet and crew for more than likely a single rich jerk who feels too special to
by ocdtrekkie 5y ago
That and it's also the most wasteful use of fuel, because you're lifting an entire jet and crew for more than likely a single rich jerk who feels too special to fly passenger jets like everyone else. On a carbon-per-person metric, private jets are literally the worst.
- pxeboot 5y ago> On a carbon-per-person metric, private jets are literally the worst. And the same people probably have several yachts that burn even more fuel per hour.
- shock 5y ago> On a carbon-per-person metric, private jets are literally the worst. Depends what you consider a "jet". There are a lot of aicraft in GA aviation that consume fuel at the same amount/km as a car, while not contributing to carbon emissions by sitting in traffic. Many of them also burn regular gasoline as fuel.
- rektide 5y ago> On a carbon-per-person metric, private jets are literally the worst. Were the worst. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tourism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tourism
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- mrmuagi 5y agoThis just makes the per-person metric a useless metric. There's not a lot of space flights to even point it out as a issue.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- whiddershins 5y agoWait but rockets don’t use fossil fuels, do they?
- Sharlin 5y agoOh, but they do. New Shepard uses liquid hydrogen, which is not a fossil fuel per se, but in practice hydrogen is currently made from fossil fuels. SpaceShipTwo uses HTPB which is a hydrocarbon oligomer, basically synthetic rubber, definitely a fossil fuel. Falcon 9 first stage engines use RP-1, a fancy type of jet fuel. The Starship first stage uses methane, a fossil fuel (although it could be made renewably as well). The Atlas V core stage uses RP-1 and the boosters HTPB. The Delta IV and Ariane 5 core stages use liquid hydrogen.
- nicoburns 5y agoA quick google says it took 2.90652E11 joules ~= 80MWh to get Saturn V to the moon. That seems like it'd actually be quite doable to do with renewables if you didn't need to fly too often.
- philipkglass 5y agoI think that must be something like imparted kinetic energy rather than chemical energy of the fuel it burned. This puts Apollo 16 fuel at 4.19E13 joules: https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/35155/what-rocket-system-launch-contained-the-highest-amount-of-propellent-potential-e https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/35155/what-rocket-... Still doable with renewables though. Assume 11639 MWh of fuel energy and 60% efficiency converting electricity to fuel. About 19,400 MWh total. That's 8 days of output from a 300 MW wind farm operating at 1/3 capacity factor.
- Qwertious 5y agoThe energy in rocket fuel has to come from somewhere. If it doesn't come from renewables, it's probably from fossil. For instance, most hydrogen production currently comes from heating up methane and steam for a CH4 + 2x H20 -> 4x H2 + CO2 reaction. So current hydrogen is just gas with extra steps.
- bluGill 5y agoIf the only ones allowed to emit net positive CO2 where those rich enough to afford private planes global warming wouldn't be an issue because there are not enough of them. It is still a evil corrupt practice to except the rich like this though. The same laws need to apply to everyone, which means my time on an airplane counts for as much as anyone else even though I can only afford to fly at all because I buy one seat on a commercial plane once in a while. Either everyone can't fly, everyone can, or at least the same rules apply.
- sokoloff 5y agoIf you’re interested in having the same laws apply, airline fuel is already exempted from most taxes in most jurisdictions. (It is in the US.) I think this proposal is trying to align business aviation to the same taxation as commercial, not to give business aviation a specific tax break not enjoyed by others.
- ithkuil 5y agoAnd it's not even about forbidding them to so it. It's just about paying a little bit of taxes. Is the fuel taxes such a big part of the cost of flying a private jet? Is it just that those people hate paying taxes on principle (and manage to lobby for it)?
- Schlaefer 5y agoWho talks about jets or crews? This doesn't affect billionaires, but private and recreational use of mostly small propeller planes. Flying is expensive, but it isn't a privilege of "rich jerks". You want to make it a privilege for the elite, then go ahead and tax it to death.
- overscore 5y agoGA in the EU is definitely the preserve of the rich.
- Torwald 5y agoGA?
- overscore 5y agoGeneral Aviation - the category that encompasses private plane ownership.
- clusterfish 5y agoIt's mostly government regulations that made it that way. Small deregulated aircraft are a lot more affordable.
- ryanlol 5y agoIt’s really not that expensive, especially in eastern european countries like Romania.
- Bjartr 5y ago> [this affects] private and recreational use of mostly small propeller planes. Private and recreational flying is explicitly exempted from the tax too. So I don't think it affects them.
- Schlaefer 5y ago> Private and recreational flying is explicitly exempted from the tax too. So I don't think it affects them. That was my point. Most of the comments hammer down on "oh, the corrupt elite wants to cheaply fly to Davos", ignoring that flying - while a very expensive hobby - is an aspirational and achievable endeavor for many people including an attached industry and jobs.
- systemvoltage 5y agoI know it is cool to hate on rich people these days but the amount of CO2 pollution created by handful of private jets is miniscule compared to the rest of the aviation industry which is still miniscule compared to general transportion, agriculture and meat industry. Just keep the magnitude in context, I think it is still an issue but our focus needs to be appropriately allocated. Should we also care that rich people take up more room in the airplane than the rest? Business class should be abolished?
- gambiting 5y agoMe dumping a bunch of tyres into a nearby river would be absolutely negligible compared to global pollution, yes it's still not allowed. A single private jet flight is incredibly polluting yet we allow it to be exempt from pollution tax because......on a grand scale it's nothing? Hmmmmmmm.
- systemvoltage 5y agoAll of your points are valid. I guess I struggle with the hypocrisy around that fact that if we really want to curb CO2, there is a bigger fish to fry. For example, millions of people travel for pleasure on airplanes. From one point to the otherside of the globe. No one gives a damn about that, but hey! Look, rich people on fancy airplanes. Even just today, GitHub copilot Twitter thread was full of “Rich people (Microsoft apparently) get to ignore licenses but us poor plebs have to abide by them” Christ. I feel like I’m witnessing a mob without reason, logic and rational.
- peytn 5y agoPeople like when things are fair. To get those big wins you’re gonna have to either make things look fair or use force (i.e. guns). You won’t be able to change human society into a kind of minmaxing superintelligence.
- systemvoltage 5y agoAgreed, I want fairness as well. I’m not opposed to the taxes on private jets. I’m just opposed to the overwhelming “fuck the rich” mob tone. Maybe I’m looking into this too much, but to me it’s unavoidable observation.
- avalys 5y agoPrivate jets are completely irrelevant to global warming because there are not enough of them. They’re a convenient distraction from the problem that actually curbing global warming will require huge changes in the lifestyle of the global middle class. Not just the super-rich.
- y04nn 5y agoYes, they are probably irrelevant, but how people are going to accept to change their lifestyle when the wealthiest do not, the message sent to the population has not an irrelevant effect I think.
- 7952 5y agoIts all the same CO2. Everyone has to do their bit.
- foobiekr 5y agoFairness and the perception of fairness is not a distraction. If anything, behavior now, where the most privileged who can pay insignificantly more are given a pass, is terribly damaging. It portends a future where only the lower classes shoulder the burden of reductions in quality of life to manage climate change. Which is, of course, what's going to happen.
- AndrewBissell 5y agoNot at all the super-rich seems more like the intended trajectory.
- lamontcg 5y ago> curbing global warming will require huge changes in the lifestyle of the global middle class. Except it won't. It will cause some large industries to cease to exist though.
- FpUser 5y agoIf large industries will cease to exist it will cause big rise in unemployment. This will for sure affect lower and middle classes
- himinlomax 5y agoGeneral aviation is essential to the aviation ecosystem, particularly for the training of pilots and technician. People rich enough to buy afford a jet wouldn't be phased by a jet fuel tax, but a tax affecting very small carriers and general aviation will reduce the available talent pool. Either directly by reducing a venue through which people learn to become pilots and technicians, limit their job opportunities in periods of downturn of the rest of the industry, but also indirectly by making the field even less accessible.