6 ms·

Hey Bill and other elites - does this mean no more 20,000 square foot homes and private jets?

by DLA 4y ago

disabled 4y ago
Gates’ main house is actually 66,000 square feet. He apparently has 6 total houses. See: https://www.velvetropes.com/backstage/bill-gates-house https://www.velvetropes.com/backstage/bill-gates-house Anyways, Gates is always preaching about “policy” (The Gates Foundation is about power and getting governments to fund their objectives, ultimately) but never actually sets a good individual example of how to live, like normal citizens. I mean, it is not coincidental that he is preaching about global warming right after the Nord Stream pipeline was blown, which released an unprecedented amount of methane in to the atmosphere.
notriddle 4y ago
> You’ll never solve climate change by asking people to consume less The headline says 'no.'
- disabled 4y ago
  The above poster is just suggesting that Bill Gates not be a hypocrite with respect to consuming less. He consumes way way way more than the average citizen. I don’t even know why people listen to him. Shouldn’t we be listening to actual climate scientists in the US government? And not some software CEO who has conflicts of interest? Why are we even platforming this dude and giving him any legitimacy?
  - sattoshi 4y ago
    He spends a lot of money to be heard. Nobody was listening to him until he started throwing millions around to organizations to platform him.
  - presentation 4y ago
    If I were Bill Gates it would probably be miserable to take normal flights, can't walk two steps before someone gawks. If anything just reinforces that being famous sucks.
    - carlmr 4y ago
      You could still then have other famous people join you on your flights until they're packed like economy flights.
yongjik 4y ago
I always feel the talks of private jets are missing the point. (Besides, it's always the private jets of Al Gore and Bill Gates that are in question. People never ask about the private jets of BP execs.) To simplify, let's assume that Bill Gates has a Boeing 747, which burns about 38 pounds of fuel per mile [1]. Distance between New York (JFK) and London (LHR) is 3,440 mile. For a round trip, double that, so we have about 261k pounds, or 118 ton of fuel. Applying jet fuel to CO2 conversion ratio of 3.16 [2], we get about 374 ton of CO2. If Bill Gates takes this trip every day for a year, we get about 137,000 tons of CO2. Okay, that's a lot! However, Mankind emitted about 35 billion ton of CO2 in 2020. That's about 66,000 tons per minute. So Bill Gates would have contributed about two minute's worth of global warming in a year. That's still an extremely large amount for a single person, but the question we should ask is, did Bill Gates's action (such as advocating nuclear power) result in delaying global warming by two minutes? Not one year, not even a day, but just two minutes? Alternatively, did he speed up mankind's preparation, again, by two minutes? If the answer to either question is Yes, then I'd argue that it's worth the CO2 spent on it. Now let's invert the question. What's the justification for people who say "Fuck global warming!" and hop on a trip to Hawaii? Collectively they sustain many more flights per year, and it's not like most of them are doing anything substantial to mitigate AGW. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft [2] https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-the-growth-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-commercial-aviation https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-the-growth-in-gr...
- yucky 4y ago
  >Besides, it's always the private jets of Al Gore and Bill Gates that are in question. People never ask about the private jets of BP execs. Because the BP execs aren't being hypocrites and telling all the commoners to lower their living standards..
  - h0l0cube 4y ago
    You have to think of the counterfactual. If 1x emissions are required for, say, government advocacy, that reduces emissions by 100x, you would lose 99x of emissions reductions by avoiding the advocacy. It’s not hypocrisy so much as pragmatism
mkhpalm 4y ago
I believe Bill Gates home is actually around 66,000 square feet.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Hey Bill and other elites - does this mean no more 20,000 square foot homes and private jets?

by DLA 4y ago

Hey Bill and other elites - does this mean no more 20,000 square foot homes and private jets?

Gates’ main house is actually 66,000 square feet. He apparently has 6 total houses. See: https://www.velvetropes.com/backstage/bill-gates-house https://www.velvetropes.com/backstage/bill-gates-house Anyways, Gates is always preaching about “policy” (The Gates Foundation is about power and getting governments to fund their objectives, ultimately) but never actually sets a good individual example of how to live, like normal citizens. I mean, it is not coincidental that he is preaching about global warming right after the Nord Stream pipeline was blown, which released an unprecedented amount of methane in to the atmosphere.

notriddle 4y ago

> You’ll never solve climate change by asking people to consume less The headline says 'no.'

disabled 4y ago
The above poster is just suggesting that Bill Gates not be a hypocrite with respect to consuming less. He consumes way way way more than the average citizen. I don’t even know why people listen to him. Shouldn’t we be listening to actual climate scientists in the US government? And not some software CEO who has conflicts of interest? Why are we even platforming this dude and giving him any legitimacy?
- sattoshi 4y ago
  He spends a lot of money to be heard. Nobody was listening to him until he started throwing millions around to organizations to platform him.
- presentation 4y ago
  If I were Bill Gates it would probably be miserable to take normal flights, can't walk two steps before someone gawks. If anything just reinforces that being famous sucks.
  - carlmr 4y ago
    You could still then have other famous people join you on your flights until they're packed like economy flights.

yongjik 4y ago

I always feel the talks of private jets are missing the point. (Besides, it's always the private jets of Al Gore and Bill Gates that are in question. People never ask about the private jets of BP execs.) To simplify, let's assume that Bill Gates has a Boeing 747, which burns about 38 pounds of fuel per mile [1]. Distance between New York (JFK) and London (LHR) is 3,440 mile. For a round trip, double that, so we have about 261k pounds, or 118 ton of fuel. Applying jet fuel to CO2 conversion ratio of 3.16 [2], we get about 374 ton of CO2. If Bill Gates takes this trip every day for a year, we get about 137,000 tons of CO2. Okay, that's a lot! However, Mankind emitted about 35 billion ton of CO2 in 2020. That's about 66,000 tons per minute. So Bill Gates would have contributed about two minute's worth of global warming in a year. That's still an extremely large amount for a single person, but the question we should ask is, did Bill Gates's action (such as advocating nuclear power) result in delaying global warming by two minutes? Not one year, not even a day, but just two minutes? Alternatively, did he speed up mankind's preparation, again, by two minutes? If the answer to either question is Yes, then I'd argue that it's worth the CO2 spent on it. Now let's invert the question. What's the justification for people who say "Fuck global warming!" and hop on a trip to Hawaii? Collectively they sustain many more flights per year, and it's not like most of them are doing anything substantial to mitigate AGW. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft [2] https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-the-growth-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-commercial-aviation https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-the-growth-in-gr...

yucky 4y ago
>Besides, it's always the private jets of Al Gore and Bill Gates that are in question. People never ask about the private jets of BP execs. Because the BP execs aren't being hypocrites and telling all the commoners to lower their living standards..
- h0l0cube 4y ago
  You have to think of the counterfactual. If 1x emissions are required for, say, government advocacy, that reduces emissions by 100x, you would lose 99x of emissions reductions by avoiding the advocacy. It’s not hypocrisy so much as pragmatism

mkhpalm 4y ago

I believe Bill Gates home is actually around 66,000 square feet.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]