5 ms·

Hollywood celebrities do this, Michael Bloomberg does this, they preach environmentalism and then get in their private jets, and fly around the world.

hfuyf65 3y ago
That is ok though. He offset ( current magic word indicating its all good ).
- cmiller1 3y ago
  Seems like a poor argument against environmentalism though. "That guy who said we should be nice to each other was mean to someone! Therefore being nice is stupid and we should all be as cruel as possible!"
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    You're speaking from the perspective of someone for whom the virtue of making personal sacrifices for environmental reasons is already obvious. Try putting yourself in the shoes of someone who doubts this. To those people, rich jetset climate activists come across like politicians who agitate against gay people then get caught having anonymous gay sex in airport bathrooms. Their hypocrisy is seen to invalidate the authenticity of their message.
  - hfuyf65 3y ago
    You are right about the argument in itself. It is poor. But the argument is not in meat of the argument, but in optics. The perception of things as 'rules for me but not for thee' almost immediately overrules even basic logic. In other words, make pain even across the board and people might listen.
brookst 3y ago
This doesn’t bother me as much as it seems to bother others. I guess I just never got into the “only people who never do something wrong can advocate against wrongdoing” mindset. Is it hypocritical? Sure, though I expect he has lots of reasons why it’s not. But is it better than not even giving lip service to the issue? Sure it is. But the fact that action isn’t good enough doesn’t mean it’s bad.
- josephcsible 3y ago
  No, it is bad. He's basically saying "you peasants should give up the little you have so that we can save the planet without me having to give up anything".
  - brookst 3y ago
    Would it be better if he just shut up and flew his private jet? That is, would it do less harm to the environment?
gruez 3y ago
I agree that the optics of that situation aren't great, but what would you rather have him do? not preach environmentalism? If all rich people are chastised for supporting environmental movements, isn't that going to be worse for the environmental movement as a whole? The ideal scenario is that rich people both preach environmentalism and move to a zero impact permaculture commune, but that's not an unrealistic expectation. We can barely get environmental measures passed today, and that's with billionaires supporting the movement. I doubt shaming billionaires for supporting the movement is going to make things better.
- currymj 3y ago
  some combination of using aviation biofuel (which in principle can be produced in a nearly carbon-neutral way) and buying non-fake carbon offsets (i.e., actually taking physical carbon out of the air) would probably be good enough. this would further absurdly increase the cost of operating a private jet, but billionaires could still afford it.
- krisoft 3y ago
  > what would you rather have him do? Not fly with a private jet? It is not an unrealistic expectation. Plenty of people manage to not fly with private jets on the regular.
  - RobKohr 3y ago
    The rich have both security and privacy concerns that make regular air travel problematic. Bill Gates sitting in an airport terminal is a danger to him, those around him, and is also a hassle to him and those around him. There is the secondary factor of their time being too valuable as well, and having a direct flight to anywhere in the world making a big difference in how much time they spend.
    - kthejoker2 3y ago
      I promise you Michael Bloomberg's time is not more valuable than anyone else on planet Earth, I don't care how big his bank account is. This is just-so reasoning.

hfuyf65 3y ago

That is ok though. He offset ( current magic word indicating its all good ).

cmiller1 3y ago
Seems like a poor argument against environmentalism though. "That guy who said we should be nice to each other was mean to someone! Therefore being nice is stupid and we should all be as cruel as possible!"
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  You're speaking from the perspective of someone for whom the virtue of making personal sacrifices for environmental reasons is already obvious. Try putting yourself in the shoes of someone who doubts this. To those people, rich jetset climate activists come across like politicians who agitate against gay people then get caught having anonymous gay sex in airport bathrooms. Their hypocrisy is seen to invalidate the authenticity of their message.
- hfuyf65 3y ago
  You are right about the argument in itself. It is poor. But the argument is not in meat of the argument, but in optics. The perception of things as 'rules for me but not for thee' almost immediately overrules even basic logic. In other words, make pain even across the board and people might listen.

brookst 3y ago

This doesn’t bother me as much as it seems to bother others. I guess I just never got into the “only people who never do something wrong can advocate against wrongdoing” mindset. Is it hypocritical? Sure, though I expect he has lots of reasons why it’s not. But is it better than not even giving lip service to the issue? Sure it is. But the fact that action isn’t good enough doesn’t mean it’s bad.

josephcsible 3y ago
No, it is bad. He's basically saying "you peasants should give up the little you have so that we can save the planet without me having to give up anything".
- brookst 3y ago
  Would it be better if he just shut up and flew his private jet? That is, would it do less harm to the environment?

gruez 3y ago

I agree that the optics of that situation aren't great, but what would you rather have him do? not preach environmentalism? If all rich people are chastised for supporting environmental movements, isn't that going to be worse for the environmental movement as a whole? The ideal scenario is that rich people both preach environmentalism and move to a zero impact permaculture commune, but that's not an unrealistic expectation. We can barely get environmental measures passed today, and that's with billionaires supporting the movement. I doubt shaming billionaires for supporting the movement is going to make things better.

currymj 3y ago
some combination of using aviation biofuel (which in principle can be produced in a nearly carbon-neutral way) and buying non-fake carbon offsets (i.e., actually taking physical carbon out of the air) would probably be good enough. this would further absurdly increase the cost of operating a private jet, but billionaires could still afford it.
krisoft 3y ago
> what would you rather have him do? Not fly with a private jet? It is not an unrealistic expectation. Plenty of people manage to not fly with private jets on the regular.
- RobKohr 3y ago
  The rich have both security and privacy concerns that make regular air travel problematic. Bill Gates sitting in an airport terminal is a danger to him, those around him, and is also a hassle to him and those around him. There is the secondary factor of their time being too valuable as well, and having a direct flight to anywhere in the world making a big difference in how much time they spend.
  - kthejoker2 3y ago
    I promise you Michael Bloomberg's time is not more valuable than anyone else on planet Earth, I don't care how big his bank account is. This is just-so reasoning.