3 ms·

Or superfluous private jet usage by executives “super commuting” between states …

• gruez 2y ago
  For all the flak that CEOs and taylor swift gets, their contribution to global warming is a drop in a bucket (percentage of aviation emissions that can be attributed to private jets), of a bucket that's being dumped in the ocean (percentage of global warming that can be attributed to aviation). They produce outsized emissions on a personal basis, but there's also so few jets relative to commercial airlines that banning them isn't going to make a dent.
  • callc 2y ago
    Every bit counts. And to make a dent, start with the things with outsized effects with simple alternatives. It’s easy to make laws about it: - private jets/charters: only allowed if have enough passengers (calculate the CO2/person) - old cars - illegal if don’t pass emissions check
    • gruez 2y ago
      >Every bit counts. "every bit" also costs political capital. Making any sort of change is going to cause a stir, and if you're going to cause a political shitshow, you might as well get good returns for it. Causing a political shitshow, but only making a modest impact is the worst outcome. Just look at the pasty tax in the UK[1]. The government proposed a change to the VAT rules that would have made a minimal fiscal impact, but generated so much flak that they were forced to back down. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasty_tax#Aftermath https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasty_tax#Aftermath >start with the things with outsized effects with simple alternatives. The examples you gave all cause disproportionate harm to a small group, which will raise a stink to their local representative, especially if they're being singled out. An across the board carbon tax avoids both these problems.
• kjkjadksj 2y ago
  How about flying the jet 5 minutes to another airfield in the same city?