this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2023
498 points (98.6% liked)

World News

32315 readers
817 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] NocturnalEngineer 183 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Majority of private jets carrying 3 passengers or less, releasing 10 times as much carbon per passenger than a commercial flight.

As a peasant, I don't think reducing my carbon footprint will offset the disgusting (increasing) display of greed from the elites.

[–] [email protected] 95 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Perhaps the greatest scam the rich ever pulled off was convincing the common people that climate change is somehow our fault instead of theirs. A single billionaire harms the earth an order of magnitude more in a single year than most small towns will in a decade

[–] [email protected] 46 points 1 year ago (4 children)

A single billionaire harms the earth an order of magnitude more in a single year than most small towns will in a decade

But if you and your family stop using plastic straws, turn the heat down in winter, meticulously sort all your recycling and use public transport more for the next decade, you can help Jeff Bezos offset the emissions for his next weekend trip to the Maldives!

[–] infectoid 8 points 1 year ago

Something inside me just died.

[–] kenbw2 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well yea. If every person reduced their impact by a tonne, that's 65 tonnes of CO2 saved

How many private jets is that?

[–] Rootiest 3 points 1 year ago

If every person reduced their impact by a tonne, that's 65 tonnes of CO2 saved

Woah there, not everyone!

We can't expect the wealthy jet owners to participate, we are trying to offset their carbon usage after all, it wouldn't be fair if they had to do it as well..

[–] gornar 2 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I'd prefer to reduce climate impact by running over Bezo's head with a tank.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

In other words, if all the billionaires just ceased to exist, it would result in the humanity achieving the emission goals?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

I mean, that's not strictly necessary either. Chinal allows a good many billionaires to exist, but they are hitting their emissions targets ahead of schedule, cause they don't let the billionaires run the entire show like they do in the USA.

[–] gornar 2 points 1 year ago

"How to Cook Forty Humans"

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's not neither only the rich nor only the poor, it's all of humanity, and that's not the rich saying that, it's the IPCC. Now the rich (countries) of course have more means to lead the change and their guilt is much higher when they don't.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] loklan 27 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Well for example, I read the other day that 1 in 10 flights taking off from the UK are private jets.

[–] Matt_Shatt 3 points 1 year ago

That’s very interesting.

Majority of private jets carrying 3 passengers or less, releasing 10 times as much carbon per passenger than a commercial flight.

As a peasant, I don't think reducing my carbon footprint will offset the disgusting (increasing) display of greed from the elites.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago

That’s funny and made me chuckle but it doesn’t substantiate the claim made.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well sort of. The source says it’s from their investments, not from their lifestyle.

Unless people have made an active choice to move their savings into an ESG pot, this will be true for everyone, just scaled according to the size of the pot.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sort of an important mention, yes, but also sort of skewed.

As the article points out 50%-70% of their emissions are due to their investments, meaning those 125 billionaires still have more direct emissions of the size of up to half the country of france.

And I don't think its fair to equate having some little money in the bank, with employing brokers to ensure the exploitation of human labour and planetary resources enables you and your children to live in luxury without ever having to work

The difference is living off of what you work for and needing a bank account vs living off of your capital (meaning other peoples labour)

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

But the “little money in the bank” is in aggregate making a huge contribution.

So it’s easy to find the people who we want to blame big. But in aggregate we all have a role to play. That’s a harder message to swallow.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The easy solution is to just directly tax carbon emissions and dump the money into methods to reduce emissions (transit, trains, green construction, agricultural controls, etc.)

People don't like taxes though, so this will never happen. An emissions-based tax is possibly the easiest way to disproportionately tax the wealthy.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes!!

I’ve long argued that courageous states should radically reform their tax system. Rebase the entire tax system around carbon tax, setting the level to ensure the state has the same income base.

There’s a naturally progressive tax system built into that but we could make it even more progressive by laddering up the rates as the carbon emissions increase.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

I don't think this type of policy is possible at the state level. The EU is gearing up for a carbon market on transportation. Carbon tax should come next, if we don't let big money lobbies kill the policy.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

We might as well extract the fat from billionaires and burn them as carbon neutral fuel.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

Render The Rich.

[–] snap 12 points 1 year ago

Any source for the 10x statistic? That seems low

[–] joelthelion 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We need both. The elite's footprint is gross and disgusting, but we peasants are far more numerous, so reducing the elite's footprint alone won't do the trick.

[–] McJonalds -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

the thing is, i will refuse to behave until the bigger misbehavers are held accountable

[–] joelthelion 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This kind of reasoning is why we are not making progress. It's much easier to hold others to high standards when you've applied these to yourself first. The same goes for countries: it will be easier to pressure China/India when the West has done their part.

[–] McJonalds 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

how do you expect people to apply those standards to themselves before they are applied to the biggest sinners? most people don't even buy how bad it is

[–] ButtholeAnnihilator 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The West can only "do its part" because we've shipped all our worst industries to China and India.

[–] joelthelion 3 points 1 year ago

Doing our part includes reducing our consumption. Where things are produced doesn't matter all that much for this part of the problem.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Global industrial practices and corporations are the biggest offenders, by far.

You know who uses all the shit they make?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah I can recycle and grow my own food and compost and ride my bike and walk places as much as I want. It won’t save as much carbon in my lifetime as even one of these flights.

It’s depressing, but I still do it because I don’t want to be part of the problem and I’ll need to know how to do these things when the world really goes to shit.