I think the message that want to be passed by this article is probably pro-oil industry. It gives a false impression that we could tackle ecology not by changing our habits but just be mad at a few billionaires. And this is factually false.
Unlike wealth pollution is more equitably shared among people. Here in order to demultiply the calculated pollution of billionaires they introduced thier industry and the pollution of their employees somehow.
And while it is expected these people pollute more. Getting rid of them will not reduce the pollution as one could expect.
unfortunately everyone, even not the wealthiest will need to change how they live to have a visible impact on pollution. broadly speeking, not just CO2, as we have a lot more ecological problems than global warming. Note the focus on global warming alone is also a strategy to hide the real changes that need to ne made in order to prevent humanity to hurt itself too much by destroying its own ecosystem.
Edit: As I am being downvoted it looks people probably misunderstood my message. I would gladly get rid of super rich people. But while this would help, we would all still need to make efforts. Until we accept that we should change our way of life, we will not solve our balance with our ecosystem.
Cart before the horse. Get rid of the billionaires, then work on individual consumption. Some of us have been recycling and trying to save the environment most of our lives while Taylor Swift flies her private jet to Italy to get a gelato.
Billionaires generate obscene amounts of carbon pollution with their yachts and private jets – but this is dwarfed by the pollution caused by their investments,” said Oxfam International’s inequality policy adviser Alex Maitland.
Through the corporations they own, billionaires emit a million times more carbon than the average person. They tend to favour investments in heavily polluting industries, like fossil fuels.
Private jets aren’t great, but they’re objectively a tiny part of emissions. According to the EPA,
If we banned private jets, we’d decrease emissions by somewhere under 2%, assuming we’re just banning the larger luxury private jets Taylor Swift is chauffered in, not the recreational 2-4 seat single prop aircraft that pilots own. Taylor Swift’s jet was in the news for polluting as much as 1,184.8 average people. That’s not equitable, but objectively it’s a pretty small part of the problem.
Passenger vehicles are 58% of transportation emissions. If you include freight trucks, they’re 83% of transportation emissions. Insisting on eliminating 2% of emissions before we even think about reducing 58% of emissions is the definition of putting the cart before the horse.
The problem with driving isn’t with individual people deciding to drive instead of walking 2 hours to get groceries. It’s the car-centric Euclidean zoning and sprawling (sub)urban design that makes driving the only practical option. If you can get the average person to drive 4% less by e.g. giving them a neighborhood pub they can bike to in 5 minutes, you’ve done more to decrease emissions than by grounding every private jet.
I mean, don’t get me wrong - we can do both at the same time. But Taylor Swift’s emissions are objectively more a matter of equity and optics than substance. You don’t fix climate change by hyperfixating on eliminating 2% of emissions.
Everyone has a negligible impact as an individual, yes.
But people act as groups, responding to the incentives given to them. There’s a reason why the average person in Houston drives a lot more than the average person in Amsterdam. It’s because Houston has the widest freeway in the world and is very car-oriented, and Amsterdam has world-class bike infrastructure and is very walkable and transitable. It’s not because Amsterdam is filled with virtuous environmentalists while Houston is filled with evil people who hate the planet.
And as groups, people add up. In the US, 58% of transportation emissions are from cars, SUVs and pickups, while only 2% are from non- commercial planes. On the personal level, private jets are terrible. Added up to a societal level, they’re a tiny part of the problem, while cars are a giant part of the problem.
There are billions of us, we can look at more than one angle at a time. If we can’t all help on the issue du jour we should just pack it in?
Or let’s talk about how that air travel metric is likely bullshit. We barely do full lifecycle emissions for cars, do you think that metric did that for planes? Their tires? Their mandatory retirement duty cycle for all kinds of components up to their frames? They aren’t expensive as hell for the prestige of it.
All human air traffic combined is 2% of emissions. A private jet is not a big deal.
Calling out private jets from rich people is a conservative tactic to make wealthy people who advocate for climate policy look like hypocrites. It’s a nonsensical position that was never intended to be thought through. It’s a kneejerk slogan for the boomer hordes.
But it’s actually a problem. It measures whole percentage points, it’s not a rounding error.
Dismissing an issue or person because conservatives are also using it as a punching bag doesn’t remove the problem, it just lets the conservatives control the narrative. I don’t think participating in that polarizing behavior is good or useful.
No, because the intent is to reduce aggregate demand. One person’s life choices are completely irrelevant, but when you spread ideas like ride-sharing, public transport, and walking/biking, the goal is for many people to choose one or more of those options regularly.
Long after we have carbon taxes, planes will still be flying.
Do the math on one person flying alone on a Lear jet while running a lawnmower for fun just to pollute a little extra, vs 6 million other people taking 100,000 flights. Or don’t, because the math should be quite obvious.
Oxfam’s research found that the emissions from the investments of 125 billionaires averaged 3.1m tonnes per billionaire. This is more than a million times higher than the average emissions created by the bottom 90% of the world’s population.
emissions from the investments of 125 billionaires averaged 3.1m tonnes per billionaire
Not
emissions from the private jets of 125 billionaires averaged 3.1m tonnes per billionaire
This isn’t billionaires directly producing emissions from their private jets or yachts.
This is Bill Gates having a diversified portfolio that includes owning a bunch of BP, accounting the emissions caused by people buying gas from BP and then driving around to BP, and the accounting whatever percentage of BP that the Gates Foundation owns to Bill Gates.
What exactly is your solution to the problem of Bill Gates owning some percentage of BP without making regular people emit any less? After all, getting people to drive less before zeroing out Bill Gates’s emissions is apparently “putting the cart before the horse”.
I think the message that want to be passed by this article is probably pro-oil industry. It gives a false impression that we could tackle ecology not by changing our habits but just be mad at a few billionaires. And this is factually false.
Unlike wealth pollution is more equitably shared among people. Here in order to demultiply the calculated pollution of billionaires they introduced thier industry and the pollution of their employees somehow.
And while it is expected these people pollute more. Getting rid of them will not reduce the pollution as one could expect.
unfortunately everyone, even not the wealthiest will need to change how they live to have a visible impact on pollution. broadly speeking, not just CO2, as we have a lot more ecological problems than global warming. Note the focus on global warming alone is also a strategy to hide the real changes that need to ne made in order to prevent humanity to hurt itself too much by destroying its own ecosystem.
Edit: As I am being downvoted it looks people probably misunderstood my message. I would gladly get rid of super rich people. But while this would help, we would all still need to make efforts. Until we accept that we should change our way of life, we will not solve our balance with our ecosystem.
It’s not even that
They specifically say that the numbers wouldn’t be this skewed if you didn’t count their companies as their own personal emissions.
It’s just a stupid article all around.
Cart before the horse. Get rid of the billionaires, then work on individual consumption. Some of us have been recycling and trying to save the environment most of our lives while Taylor Swift flies her private jet to Italy to get a gelato.
Private jets aren’t great, but they’re objectively a tiny part of emissions. According to the EPA,
If we banned private jets, we’d decrease emissions by somewhere under 2%, assuming we’re just banning the larger luxury private jets Taylor Swift is chauffered in, not the recreational 2-4 seat single prop aircraft that pilots own. Taylor Swift’s jet was in the news for polluting as much as 1,184.8 average people. That’s not equitable, but objectively it’s a pretty small part of the problem.
Passenger vehicles are 58% of transportation emissions. If you include freight trucks, they’re 83% of transportation emissions. Insisting on eliminating 2% of emissions before we even think about reducing 58% of emissions is the definition of putting the cart before the horse.
The problem with driving isn’t with individual people deciding to drive instead of walking 2 hours to get groceries. It’s the car-centric Euclidean zoning and sprawling (sub)urban design that makes driving the only practical option. If you can get the average person to drive 4% less by e.g. giving them a neighborhood pub they can bike to in 5 minutes, you’ve done more to decrease emissions than by grounding every private jet.
I mean, don’t get me wrong - we can do both at the same time. But Taylor Swift’s emissions are objectively more a matter of equity and optics than substance. You don’t fix climate change by hyperfixating on eliminating 2% of emissions.
I’m sorry. My comment wasn’t clear. Billionaires shouldn’t exist.
I think we shouldn’t wait for the billionaires to disappear to make efforts.
Saying as long as billionaires are polluting I can still pollute as usual is simply dismissing our own responsibility.
Even though, I agree, billionaires should be the first to make the largest effort.
Keep the status quo. Got it. Hope that works out for you.
That would have a negligible impact on climate change
Almost everyone has a negligible impact when taken individually, that’s no excuse. Flying is terrible, private jets even more so.
Everyone has a negligible impact as an individual, yes.
But people act as groups, responding to the incentives given to them. There’s a reason why the average person in Houston drives a lot more than the average person in Amsterdam. It’s because Houston has the widest freeway in the world and is very car-oriented, and Amsterdam has world-class bike infrastructure and is very walkable and transitable. It’s not because Amsterdam is filled with virtuous environmentalists while Houston is filled with evil people who hate the planet.
And as groups, people add up. In the US, 58% of transportation emissions are from cars, SUVs and pickups, while only 2% are from non- commercial planes. On the personal level, private jets are terrible. Added up to a societal level, they’re a tiny part of the problem, while cars are a giant part of the problem.
There are billions of us, we can look at more than one angle at a time. If we can’t all help on the issue du jour we should just pack it in?
Or let’s talk about how that air travel metric is likely bullshit. We barely do full lifecycle emissions for cars, do you think that metric did that for planes? Their tires? Their mandatory retirement duty cycle for all kinds of components up to their frames? They aren’t expensive as hell for the prestige of it.
All human air traffic combined is 2% of emissions. A private jet is not a big deal.
Calling out private jets from rich people is a conservative tactic to make wealthy people who advocate for climate policy look like hypocrites. It’s a nonsensical position that was never intended to be thought through. It’s a kneejerk slogan for the boomer hordes.
But it’s actually a problem. It measures whole percentage points, it’s not a rounding error.
Dismissing an issue or person because conservatives are also using it as a punching bag doesn’t remove the problem, it just lets the conservatives control the narrative. I don’t think participating in that polarizing behavior is good or useful.
That’s all air travel. All.
100,000 flights and 6 million people every day. A private jet is a drop in the bucket.
Arguing semantics? All flights are equal? A loaded a380 is just like a 6 passenger Lear?
If we argue that someone should take the bus or bike instead of drive, isn’t this the same argument?
No, because the intent is to reduce aggregate demand. One person’s life choices are completely irrelevant, but when you spread ideas like ride-sharing, public transport, and walking/biking, the goal is for many people to choose one or more of those options regularly.
Long after we have carbon taxes, planes will still be flying.
Do the math on one person flying alone on a Lear jet while running a lawnmower for fun just to pollute a little extra, vs 6 million other people taking 100,000 flights. Or don’t, because the math should be quite obvious.
Article says otherwise. We need to eliminate all billionaires.
The article literally does not say otherwise. Consider reading it.
Title
Yes, now click the article and read it
Totally did: And you’re annoying.
Notice:
Not
This isn’t billionaires directly producing emissions from their private jets or yachts.
This is Bill Gates having a diversified portfolio that includes owning a bunch of BP, accounting the emissions caused by people buying gas from BP and then driving around to BP, and the accounting whatever percentage of BP that the Gates Foundation owns to Bill Gates.
What exactly is your solution to the problem of Bill Gates owning some percentage of BP without making regular people emit any less? After all, getting people to drive less before zeroing out Bill Gates’s emissions is apparently “putting the cart before the horse”.
So, per your quote, nothing about private planes, but rather the same tired rehash that certain lines of business produce more greenhouse gases.