5 ms·

Ultimately it's a game theoretic problem though, isn't it? Your own personal impact on energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions is negligible, even if yo

by mckirk 4y ago

Ultimately it's a game theoretic problem though, isn't it? Your own personal impact on energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions is negligible, even if you are jetting around in your private jet. Therefore it only matters what all the people 'similar to you' are doing in aggregate, and your decision should be based on that: 'What impact would my decision here have, if the people in similar situations all acted the way I'm acting now.' Since there is presumably billions of people with wifi routers, but only like 25k private jets in the world, it's actually not immediately clear which has a bigger impact: the rich abstaining from flying to Napoli for an afternoon, or them turning off their router while they are gone.

luckylion 4y ago
I have no numbers to back this up, but intuitively I'd put my money on 30m Wifi-Routers in France running a third of the year while nobody is home not having a larger impact than the 270 private jets being used.
- ohgodplsno 4y ago
  And you have just lost a bunch of money! Assuming your router uses about 10 watts, that's 86kWh per router, per year. 30m routers makes this 2 580 000 000 kWh. At a current, extremely awful 116g CO2/kWh in France, that's 299 280 tonnes of CO2 per year. A single private jet is 2 tons of CO2 per hour, so your 270 private jets only need to fly 554 hours per year to be just as bad. The current average is 448 hours per year. So, yeah, private jets currently emit 80% as much CO2 per year as 30m routers running 24/7. Unless you recommend we only use wifi for 3 hours a day, getting rid of these private jets will be more productive. Additionally, those routers actually serve a use, unlike private jets. Between universal access to the Internet to millions, and a few thousands doing lines of cocaine at 30000 feet to go to their villa in Corsica, I think I know which one is more useful. And finally, it's a matter of perceived justice. And believe me, being told to turn off your wifi while a rich dickwad can fly to Acapulco for three hours tends to make people slightly angry, not willing to make sacrifices and with a tendency to commit extremely unlawful acts against such jets.
  - luckylion 4y ago
    Private jets only average 448 hours a year? I'm surprised, I had imagined many of them to be either used a lot or rented out and not be grounded 95% of the year. Does that include "empty flights" to get the jet to the location of the passenger? I guess we should also consider private turbo props (not really jets? but "private jets" is probably just short for "private plane" for all intents and purposes").
    - bluesign 4y ago
      Actually 448 hours a year is pretty high in my opinion.
      - luckylion 4y ago
        I guess it depends on what you consider "private jets". One that's exclusively used by some CEO or their family, 448 hours feels like a lot, but I don't know their typical travel schedule. But for "private rentals" that you rent for a trip or something, I'd assume they get a lot more action than only being used 5% of the year. Where's flueber, the app to book private jets? It sounds incredibly wasteful to only rent something out 5% of the year. Is maintenance a large issue?
        ohgodplsno 4y ago
        Take the private jets of 6 french billionaires. It is registered to their company. https://twitter.com/i_fly_Bernard/status/1565102112731693061 https://twitter.com/i_fly_Bernard/status/1565102112731693061 Francois Pinault flied it 26 hours in a single month, or 318 hours per year. And that's the jets from a billionaire who couldn't give a damn whether or not they're making money on this plane. It's just their personal taxi. Now, consider that private jet operators _have_ to rent to make money, and the average goes way up.
      - ohgodplsno 4y ago
        Good thing your opinions don't really matter when it comes to fighting climate change then! Jets that are registered to companies fly regularly (yes, Bernard Arnault doesn't have a Bernard Arnault jet, he has 3 LVMH jets). It's currently doing at the very least 2 hours of flying per day. A regular, commercial airplane flies over 3 000 hours per year.
ohgodplsno 4y ago
No. A single day from one of LVMH's private jets is equivalent to the yearly CO2 emissions of 1500 people. Nothing, absolutely nothing justifies this. There is no reasonable world where this should be acceptable, much less one where we are in a climate crisis.
mola 4y ago
Game theoretic thinking brings "stable" but disastarous results. Perhaps now that humanity knows about game theory we should try and find ways to encompass humanism and other values into the pure rationalist model.
- candiodari 4y ago
  Unfortunately "stable" means that they cannot be destroyed by a single actor. So unless you're prepared to use violence against anyone in the world, and "someone" might be Putin or Xi, meaning you'd have to be prepared to fight WW3 ... you'll need a stable solution.

by mckirk 4y ago

luckylion 4y ago

I have no numbers to back this up, but intuitively I'd put my money on 30m Wifi-Routers in France running a third of the year while nobody is home not having a larger impact than the 270 private jets being used.

ohgodplsno 4y ago
And you have just lost a bunch of money! Assuming your router uses about 10 watts, that's 86kWh per router, per year. 30m routers makes this 2 580 000 000 kWh. At a current, extremely awful 116g CO2/kWh in France, that's 299 280 tonnes of CO2 per year. A single private jet is 2 tons of CO2 per hour, so your 270 private jets only need to fly 554 hours per year to be just as bad. The current average is 448 hours per year. So, yeah, private jets currently emit 80% as much CO2 per year as 30m routers running 24/7. Unless you recommend we only use wifi for 3 hours a day, getting rid of these private jets will be more productive. Additionally, those routers actually serve a use, unlike private jets. Between universal access to the Internet to millions, and a few thousands doing lines of cocaine at 30000 feet to go to their villa in Corsica, I think I know which one is more useful. And finally, it's a matter of perceived justice. And believe me, being told to turn off your wifi while a rich dickwad can fly to Acapulco for three hours tends to make people slightly angry, not willing to make sacrifices and with a tendency to commit extremely unlawful acts against such jets.
- luckylion 4y ago
  Private jets only average 448 hours a year? I'm surprised, I had imagined many of them to be either used a lot or rented out and not be grounded 95% of the year. Does that include "empty flights" to get the jet to the location of the passenger? I guess we should also consider private turbo props (not really jets? but "private jets" is probably just short for "private plane" for all intents and purposes").
  - bluesign 4y ago
    Actually 448 hours a year is pretty high in my opinion.
    - luckylion 4y ago
      I guess it depends on what you consider "private jets". One that's exclusively used by some CEO or their family, 448 hours feels like a lot, but I don't know their typical travel schedule. But for "private rentals" that you rent for a trip or something, I'd assume they get a lot more action than only being used 5% of the year. Where's flueber, the app to book private jets? It sounds incredibly wasteful to only rent something out 5% of the year. Is maintenance a large issue?
      - ohgodplsno 4y ago
        Take the private jets of 6 french billionaires. It is registered to their company. https://twitter.com/i_fly_Bernard/status/1565102112731693061 https://twitter.com/i_fly_Bernard/status/1565102112731693061 Francois Pinault flied it 26 hours in a single month, or 318 hours per year. And that's the jets from a billionaire who couldn't give a damn whether or not they're making money on this plane. It's just their personal taxi. Now, consider that private jet operators _have_ to rent to make money, and the average goes way up.
    - ohgodplsno 4y ago
      Good thing your opinions don't really matter when it comes to fighting climate change then! Jets that are registered to companies fly regularly (yes, Bernard Arnault doesn't have a Bernard Arnault jet, he has 3 LVMH jets). It's currently doing at the very least 2 hours of flying per day. A regular, commercial airplane flies over 3 000 hours per year.

ohgodplsno 4y ago

No. A single day from one of LVMH's private jets is equivalent to the yearly CO2 emissions of 1500 people. Nothing, absolutely nothing justifies this. There is no reasonable world where this should be acceptable, much less one where we are in a climate crisis.

mola 4y ago

Game theoretic thinking brings "stable" but disastarous results. Perhaps now that humanity knows about game theory we should try and find ways to encompass humanism and other values into the pure rationalist model.

candiodari 4y ago
Unfortunately "stable" means that they cannot be destroyed by a single actor. So unless you're prepared to use violence against anyone in the world, and "someone" might be Putin or Xi, meaning you'd have to be prepared to fight WW3 ... you'll need a stable solution.