3 ms·

You nailed it exactly. Politician’s flying in private jets and business folks in their mega yachts love to sermonize us. Meanwhile I happily walk everywhere an

You nailed it exactly. Politician’s flying in private jets and business folks in their mega yachts love to sermonize us. Meanwhile I happily walk everywhere and don’t drive a car (for over two decades). I don’t sermonize people at all though. It is a simple amount of personal usage. We have to lower carbon footprint per person. And start with the biggest offenders first. Examples of peak hypocrisy: https://pagesix.com/2019/07/30/a-listers-flock-to-google-summit-in-private-jets-mega-yachts-to-talk-climate-change/ https://pagesix.com/2019/07/30/a-listers-flock-to-google-sum...

ZeroGravitas 5y ago
I think your comment is the result of effective propaganda. Neither you nor the article you link to provide any clear path for what you think these people should do instead. There is the implication that they shouldn't fly anywhere. So are you and pagesix "cancelling" flying? Or are you only cancelling flying for your political enemies? If they chose not to fly, would you mock them for that instead, yes of course. And these people who are apparently your political enemies because they want to do something about climate change. So basically, you're on team fossil fuels destroying the planet but you get to feel good about yourself because you're non-specifically angry at someone else for reasons that don't really add up. Can you be more specific, is there anything there but a distraction? If you want to strike out at rich people then a progressive carbon tax seems a really basic thing to call for.
- prepend 5y ago
  > think these people should do instead. Fly commercial instead of private plane or yacht. I don’t think we have to switch meetings to zoom just to cut carbon emissions, but flying in a private plane has way higher carbon emissions than just taking commercial air, even first class. Private jets are 10-100x more polluting (per passenger) than commercial air. [0] This isn’t a huge dent in climate change but it represents the kind of personal decisions we all must make. So it’s hard to try to convince me to bike or walk for short trips rather than take a car if you’re not doing the same. Also note that the alternative isn’t do nothing and burn the planet down. Commercial air isn’t exclusive to exclusive Google camps in Italy where the rich plan to fight climate change. We can do both, reduce personal emissions and plan large policy changes. Unless you’re the head of state, there’s no reason to sail a yacht or fly private jets to discuss climate change. I think it’s like eating cake and caviar while planning famine relief. [0] https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/private-jets-environment-carbon-footprint-climate-change-harry-meghan-markle-a9071391.html https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/private...
  - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
    And so if there was a famine, your energy would be similarly directed not at solving the problem, but policing what the famous people doing the awareness raising are eating? I still don't understand how that's anything but detrimental to the goal that we are supposed to care about. It only makes sense to me if you want the people to starve, or want to pretend the starvation isn't happening. What other goal does calling the famine relief organisers hypocrites achieve? Like how much caviar could one organizer be eating that you think, if only I stop this person who is talking about famine that other people are pretending isn't happening, from eating that caviar, and get them to eat steak instead (but not a fancy steak) then we'd have this famine under control. But if they don't, well I guess we'll just have to let other, totally unconnected people die. Is this really a moral position to take? We do agree that the famine is a real thing that's happening, don't we?

ZeroGravitas 5y ago

I think your comment is the result of effective propaganda. Neither you nor the article you link to provide any clear path for what you think these people should do instead. There is the implication that they shouldn't fly anywhere. So are you and pagesix "cancelling" flying? Or are you only cancelling flying for your political enemies? If they chose not to fly, would you mock them for that instead, yes of course. And these people who are apparently your political enemies because they want to do something about climate change. So basically, you're on team fossil fuels destroying the planet but you get to feel good about yourself because you're non-specifically angry at someone else for reasons that don't really add up. Can you be more specific, is there anything there but a distraction? If you want to strike out at rich people then a progressive carbon tax seems a really basic thing to call for.

prepend 5y ago
> think these people should do instead. Fly commercial instead of private plane or yacht. I don’t think we have to switch meetings to zoom just to cut carbon emissions, but flying in a private plane has way higher carbon emissions than just taking commercial air, even first class. Private jets are 10-100x more polluting (per passenger) than commercial air. [0] This isn’t a huge dent in climate change but it represents the kind of personal decisions we all must make. So it’s hard to try to convince me to bike or walk for short trips rather than take a car if you’re not doing the same. Also note that the alternative isn’t do nothing and burn the planet down. Commercial air isn’t exclusive to exclusive Google camps in Italy where the rich plan to fight climate change. We can do both, reduce personal emissions and plan large policy changes. Unless you’re the head of state, there’s no reason to sail a yacht or fly private jets to discuss climate change. I think it’s like eating cake and caviar while planning famine relief. [0] https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/private-jets-environment-carbon-footprint-climate-change-harry-meghan-markle-a9071391.html https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/private...
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  And so if there was a famine, your energy would be similarly directed not at solving the problem, but policing what the famous people doing the awareness raising are eating? I still don't understand how that's anything but detrimental to the goal that we are supposed to care about. It only makes sense to me if you want the people to starve, or want to pretend the starvation isn't happening. What other goal does calling the famine relief organisers hypocrites achieve? Like how much caviar could one organizer be eating that you think, if only I stop this person who is talking about famine that other people are pretending isn't happening, from eating that caviar, and get them to eat steak instead (but not a fancy steak) then we'd have this famine under control. But if they don't, well I guess we'll just have to let other, totally unconnected people die. Is this really a moral position to take? We do agree that the famine is a real thing that's happening, don't we?