7 ms·

I certainly hope it wouldn't apply to private planes, since a very common flight for them is taking off, flying around, and landing back at the same airport.

happymellon 3y ago
I don't understand, why would they do that, and why shouldn't we ban them from contributing to global warming for wasting fuel. They are better ways for the ultra rich to blow their cash.
- Symbiote 3y ago
  Surveying (agriculture, forestry, general land use) is the first example where this would be a reasonable flight.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- lxgr 3y ago
  GA is much more than business aviation (i.e. "private jets"/"ultra rich blowing their cash"). Just to name a few: Aerial photography (including checking for insulation leaks of heat/power co-generation pipelines), calibration flights for aviation infrastructure (ILS, localizers etc), training flights (or would you be fine with a commercial airline pilot to have their first training flight with you in the back?)...
  - George83728 3y ago
    So have they permitted these commercial/industrial flights while banning short-haul passenger flights for wealthy/business? Or are these industrial flights merely being used as cover to justify permitting rich people to fly themselves around short distances while the common man is forbidden? It's not as though legislatures are powerless to distinguish between these. If they haven't, it's because they've chosen not to.
    - lxgr 3y ago
      > It's not as though legislatures are powerless to distinguish between these. If they haven't, it's because they've chosen not to. Or because they've chosen to spend their limited resources on other, higher-impact policy changes first. Private jets account for something like 1% of carbon emissions of aviation. That's not nothing, but making it a top agenda item seems like populism more than anything.
      - George83728 3y ago
        > Or because they've chosen to spend their limited resources You mean their limited supply of ink and office paper? Or their... limited political capital to make laws which inconvenience the rich?
- vel0city 3y ago
  People do this because flying can be enjoyable and fun. These are often hobbyists flying small planes. They're also not necessarily "ultra" rich. Should we also ban recreational boating? What about recreationally driving a car?
  - epups 3y ago
    But if we allow people to take off on a plane for fun, why shouldn't we allow people to collectively share a plane and get to their destination for a variety of reasons? This partial ban seems unfair otherwise
    - vel0city 3y ago
      I imagine this ban doesn't affect a GA pilot taking a few of their friends along for a flight. But this is a pretty rare use, it's impact is extremely less than commercial operators doing constant flights on much larger planes every day. GA pilots generally aren't flying Airbus A320s with like 120 seats, they're flying Cessnas and Pipers with like maybe half a dozen seats. They're maybe flying every couple of days instead of back and forth a few times a day, every day of the week. Its a pretty major difference.
      - epups 3y ago
        Ok, but the commercial planes are taking a lot of people for reasons that impact commerce (tourism, business meetings, etc). A private flight for pleasure should obviously be banned before those use cases if we're purely thinking of global warming. I am against banning any aviation use btw, this is too unfair to a particular group of people and is not based on any objective standard. Any aviation restriction that doesn't start with not letting the rich have private flights is unfair.
        vel0city 3y ago
        That private flight every now and then has such extremely negligible emissions compared to a whole industry of much larger planes which fly as much as economically possible. Can you really not see the difference between these two different usages?
- crazygringo 3y ago
  General aviation isn't for the ultra rich, it's just another hobby that's accessible to the middle class. We're talking decades-old Cessna 172's, not Learjets. It's flying for fun, to sightsee. Or learning how to fly in order to get a pilot's license! If you want to ban them for wasting fuel, you might as well ban people from taking leisurely Sunday afternoon sightseeing drives.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  Why should we allow people to own more than one computation device and thereby waste electricity? Btw., that kind of approach is one of the components of why climate change policies don't sell so well.
- ThorsBane 3y ago
  Nah you don't get to decide if someone flies their craft purely for enjoyment. Doesn't matter if it "contributes" to global warming. It's not a needle mover at all and this is just about control. It's a slippery slope. I will not tolerate this slippery slope at all. These bureacrats will just have to be satisfied with enacting real meaningful changes where they matter - not on regulating people's free choice and free exercise and how easily and quickly they can move around their homeland via electric planes. This is all one big slippery slope towards tyrants regulating every aspect of an individual's life in the name of carbon emissions. You don't get to decide what flights are a waste of fuel. You also don't get to evaluate and decide how someone else should spend their hard-earned money. If there were no more flights at all, of any kind, that would represent 4% of emissions. That's for the entire planet's worth of flights. This change here won't make any difference at all to emissions, but they'll definitely empower bureacrats who are salivating at every prospect of making themselves more powerful at everyone else's expense.
  - nologic01 3y ago
    > that would represent 4% of emissions you can split the 100% of total emissions into 25 pieces, apply your impeccable "logic" for freedom of choice to spend hard-earned money (somehow its never ill-gotten money) on all of them and burn the planet to your ideological satisfaction. the only slippery slope here is the normalization of the "do-nothing because it inconveniences me" mentality. your freedom of action ends where it conflicts with the collective survival and that is i) not a new thing and ii) is not negotiable. the details of what to change and how are up for discussion and critique, but talk of "tyrants" and "salivating bureaucrats" indicates you will not be the one contributing anything meaningful to the discussion
    - prottog 3y ago
      > with the collective survival Deaths from climate-related disasters have been falling in absolute numbers even as the world population grows. In fact, in the 50 years from 1970 to 2019, humanity more than doubled in number while climate-related deaths decreased threefold. This is due to the increasing ability of people in developing countries to better harness and control their natural environment enabled by industrialization driven by fossil fuels. All of human progress has been about higher per capita energy expenditure. To stop that now is to condemn the global poor to remain in poverty. We'll know for sure in another fifty to a hundred years, but my bet is that the bigger threat to humanity's collective survival will be from the increasing centralization of power at the hands of the few that things like "fighting climate change" require. [0]: https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=10989 https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=10989
- kgermino 3y ago
  Private planes and flights are a _much_ bigger world than private jets for the ultra rich. Many moderately wealthy (and some surprisingly poor) people fly regularly, either for work or for fun, and many of those flights are either beneficial to society or no worse than other recreational activities. Some examples of flights that would start and end at the same airport: * Farmers flying to review and maintain their fields/livestock * Pilots practicing by taking off, flying around, touch-and-gos on the runway, etc * Tour flights showing people around an area * Skydiving * Flights for shows or other entertainment

happymellon 3y ago

I don't understand, why would they do that, and why shouldn't we ban them from contributing to global warming for wasting fuel. They are better ways for the ultra rich to blow their cash.

Symbiote 3y ago
Surveying (agriculture, forestry, general land use) is the first example where this would be a reasonable flight.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
lxgr 3y ago
GA is much more than business aviation (i.e. "private jets"/"ultra rich blowing their cash"). Just to name a few: Aerial photography (including checking for insulation leaks of heat/power co-generation pipelines), calibration flights for aviation infrastructure (ILS, localizers etc), training flights (or would you be fine with a commercial airline pilot to have their first training flight with you in the back?)...
- George83728 3y ago
  So have they permitted these commercial/industrial flights while banning short-haul passenger flights for wealthy/business? Or are these industrial flights merely being used as cover to justify permitting rich people to fly themselves around short distances while the common man is forbidden? It's not as though legislatures are powerless to distinguish between these. If they haven't, it's because they've chosen not to.
  - lxgr 3y ago
    > It's not as though legislatures are powerless to distinguish between these. If they haven't, it's because they've chosen not to. Or because they've chosen to spend their limited resources on other, higher-impact policy changes first. Private jets account for something like 1% of carbon emissions of aviation. That's not nothing, but making it a top agenda item seems like populism more than anything.
    - George83728 3y ago
      > Or because they've chosen to spend their limited resources You mean their limited supply of ink and office paper? Or their... limited political capital to make laws which inconvenience the rich?
vel0city 3y ago
People do this because flying can be enjoyable and fun. These are often hobbyists flying small planes. They're also not necessarily "ultra" rich. Should we also ban recreational boating? What about recreationally driving a car?
- epups 3y ago
  But if we allow people to take off on a plane for fun, why shouldn't we allow people to collectively share a plane and get to their destination for a variety of reasons? This partial ban seems unfair otherwise
  - vel0city 3y ago
    I imagine this ban doesn't affect a GA pilot taking a few of their friends along for a flight. But this is a pretty rare use, it's impact is extremely less than commercial operators doing constant flights on much larger planes every day. GA pilots generally aren't flying Airbus A320s with like 120 seats, they're flying Cessnas and Pipers with like maybe half a dozen seats. They're maybe flying every couple of days instead of back and forth a few times a day, every day of the week. Its a pretty major difference.
    - epups 3y ago
      Ok, but the commercial planes are taking a lot of people for reasons that impact commerce (tourism, business meetings, etc). A private flight for pleasure should obviously be banned before those use cases if we're purely thinking of global warming. I am against banning any aviation use btw, this is too unfair to a particular group of people and is not based on any objective standard. Any aviation restriction that doesn't start with not letting the rich have private flights is unfair.
      - vel0city 3y ago
        That private flight every now and then has such extremely negligible emissions compared to a whole industry of much larger planes which fly as much as economically possible. Can you really not see the difference between these two different usages?
crazygringo 3y ago
General aviation isn't for the ultra rich, it's just another hobby that's accessible to the middle class. We're talking decades-old Cessna 172's, not Learjets. It's flying for fun, to sightsee. Or learning how to fly in order to get a pilot's license! If you want to ban them for wasting fuel, you might as well ban people from taking leisurely Sunday afternoon sightseeing drives.
RandomLensman 3y ago
Why should we allow people to own more than one computation device and thereby waste electricity? Btw., that kind of approach is one of the components of why climate change policies don't sell so well.
ThorsBane 3y ago
Nah you don't get to decide if someone flies their craft purely for enjoyment. Doesn't matter if it "contributes" to global warming. It's not a needle mover at all and this is just about control. It's a slippery slope. I will not tolerate this slippery slope at all. These bureacrats will just have to be satisfied with enacting real meaningful changes where they matter - not on regulating people's free choice and free exercise and how easily and quickly they can move around their homeland via electric planes. This is all one big slippery slope towards tyrants regulating every aspect of an individual's life in the name of carbon emissions. You don't get to decide what flights are a waste of fuel. You also don't get to evaluate and decide how someone else should spend their hard-earned money. If there were no more flights at all, of any kind, that would represent 4% of emissions. That's for the entire planet's worth of flights. This change here won't make any difference at all to emissions, but they'll definitely empower bureacrats who are salivating at every prospect of making themselves more powerful at everyone else's expense.
- nologic01 3y ago
  > that would represent 4% of emissions you can split the 100% of total emissions into 25 pieces, apply your impeccable "logic" for freedom of choice to spend hard-earned money (somehow its never ill-gotten money) on all of them and burn the planet to your ideological satisfaction. the only slippery slope here is the normalization of the "do-nothing because it inconveniences me" mentality. your freedom of action ends where it conflicts with the collective survival and that is i) not a new thing and ii) is not negotiable. the details of what to change and how are up for discussion and critique, but talk of "tyrants" and "salivating bureaucrats" indicates you will not be the one contributing anything meaningful to the discussion
  - prottog 3y ago
    > with the collective survival Deaths from climate-related disasters have been falling in absolute numbers even as the world population grows. In fact, in the 50 years from 1970 to 2019, humanity more than doubled in number while climate-related deaths decreased threefold. This is due to the increasing ability of people in developing countries to better harness and control their natural environment enabled by industrialization driven by fossil fuels. All of human progress has been about higher per capita energy expenditure. To stop that now is to condemn the global poor to remain in poverty. We'll know for sure in another fifty to a hundred years, but my bet is that the bigger threat to humanity's collective survival will be from the increasing centralization of power at the hands of the few that things like "fighting climate change" require. [0]: https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=10989 https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=10989
kgermino 3y ago
Private planes and flights are a _much_ bigger world than private jets for the ultra rich. Many moderately wealthy (and some surprisingly poor) people fly regularly, either for work or for fun, and many of those flights are either beneficial to society or no worse than other recreational activities. Some examples of flights that would start and end at the same airport: * Farmers flying to review and maintain their fields/livestock * Pilots practicing by taking off, flying around, touch-and-gos on the runway, etc * Tour flights showing people around an area * Skydiving * Flights for shows or other entertainment