5 ms·

The point being that even though your boss’s boss’s boss has an outsize impact, there aren’t many people like him, whereas there are millions of people like you

by jl6 3y ago

The point being that even though your boss’s boss’s boss has an outsize impact, there aren’t many people like him, whereas there are millions of people like you, so in absolute terms “your” emissions matter too.

ffhhttt 3y ago
So the societal cost of banning private jets is approximately zero? Why is it even worth discussing then?
- jl6 3y ago
  It’s not, it’s a massive distraction that makes people feel like they’re doing righteous class warfare, while barely making a dent on climate damage.
- forty 3y ago
  I think the reason it's discussed is "if I cannot destroy the planet in your country, I'll do that in another country (which won't change anything for the planet) where I'll go invest my money too (which means less money for your country)". And politians seem to buy on the threat, either because they truly believe it, or because they don't want to piss of the rich guys so they can get an overpaid job in one of their companies after their political career.
- SonicScrub 3y ago
  Because it creates an easy scapegoat for our problems. It's much easier to point to the behaviors of a very tiny group of individuals and lay all the blame on the them than it is to grapple with the real truth of climate change: that our modern society is unsustainable. Barring some grand technological revolution, reversing climate change means bringing us all back to a pre-modern society. And that really sucks.
pydry 3y ago
Because a small group of people refuses to fly commercial, more CO2 emissions are produced than the entire country of Uganda. You dont think they need to take personal responsibility for their actions? That we dont need to hold them accountable?
- tasuki 3y ago
  > Because a small group of people refuses to fly commercial, more CO2 emissions are produced than the entire country of Uganda. Commercial flight is not great for CO2 emissions either. Because a small group of people flies instead of walking or bicycling, a lot of CO2 emissions are produced. I bet the sum total CO2 of commercial flight is way higher the sum total of CO2 from private flights. Neither is necessary.
  - oblio 3y ago
    I can't bike across the Atlantic. I can't bike to see my family 2500km away.
  - david-gpu 3y ago
    > Because a small group of people flies instead of walking or bicycling I tried walking across the Atlantic once but didn't get very far. Yesterday I also couldn't find any commercial flights to the grocery store either, so I had to bike there. > I bet the sum total CO2 of commercial flight is way higher the sum total of CO2 from private flights. Neither is necessary. The notion that flying is "unnecessary" ignores those of us who immigrated across an ocean. Unless I never want to see my aging family again I will have to fly every now and then.
  - MrYellowP 3y ago
    > Because a small group of people flies instead of walking or bicycling I would love to know why/how you believed that line makes any sense.
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      Because setting a minimum quality of life as being able to fly anywhere around the world is environmentally untenable for 8B people. So if it cannot be accessible to all 8B people, then it brings up the question for how to determine who deserves it and who does not. Which then leads to who deserves first class rather than coach, which then leads to who deserves a private jet versus a plane. Or even who deserves a personal car rather than using the bus or having to carpool.

by jl6 3y ago

ffhhttt 3y ago

So the societal cost of banning private jets is approximately zero? Why is it even worth discussing then?

jl6 3y ago
It’s not, it’s a massive distraction that makes people feel like they’re doing righteous class warfare, while barely making a dent on climate damage.
forty 3y ago
I think the reason it's discussed is "if I cannot destroy the planet in your country, I'll do that in another country (which won't change anything for the planet) where I'll go invest my money too (which means less money for your country)". And politians seem to buy on the threat, either because they truly believe it, or because they don't want to piss of the rich guys so they can get an overpaid job in one of their companies after their political career.
SonicScrub 3y ago
Because it creates an easy scapegoat for our problems. It's much easier to point to the behaviors of a very tiny group of individuals and lay all the blame on the them than it is to grapple with the real truth of climate change: that our modern society is unsustainable. Barring some grand technological revolution, reversing climate change means bringing us all back to a pre-modern society. And that really sucks.

pydry 3y ago

Because a small group of people refuses to fly commercial, more CO2 emissions are produced than the entire country of Uganda. You dont think they need to take personal responsibility for their actions? That we dont need to hold them accountable?

tasuki 3y ago
> Because a small group of people refuses to fly commercial, more CO2 emissions are produced than the entire country of Uganda. Commercial flight is not great for CO2 emissions either. Because a small group of people flies instead of walking or bicycling, a lot of CO2 emissions are produced. I bet the sum total CO2 of commercial flight is way higher the sum total of CO2 from private flights. Neither is necessary.
- oblio 3y ago
  I can't bike across the Atlantic. I can't bike to see my family 2500km away.
- david-gpu 3y ago
  > Because a small group of people flies instead of walking or bicycling I tried walking across the Atlantic once but didn't get very far. Yesterday I also couldn't find any commercial flights to the grocery store either, so I had to bike there. > I bet the sum total CO2 of commercial flight is way higher the sum total of CO2 from private flights. Neither is necessary. The notion that flying is "unnecessary" ignores those of us who immigrated across an ocean. Unless I never want to see my aging family again I will have to fly every now and then.
- MrYellowP 3y ago
  > Because a small group of people flies instead of walking or bicycling I would love to know why/how you believed that line makes any sense.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    Because setting a minimum quality of life as being able to fly anywhere around the world is environmentally untenable for 8B people. So if it cannot be accessible to all 8B people, then it brings up the question for how to determine who deserves it and who does not. Which then leads to who deserves first class rather than coach, which then leads to who deserves a private jet versus a plane. Or even who deserves a personal car rather than using the bus or having to carpool.