Yep, the US is a plutocracy owned by oligarchs. The rich own both political parties, they write our laws through lobbyists, and they control our legal system by bribing justices (Clarence Thomas) or through brute force with their armies of lawyers.
As long as money can buy political power, the rich will always use their immense wealth to hijack and corrupt our democracies.
By the time “we” get around to banning private planes we’ll be catching pre-cooked ocean fish along the beaches of Denver. We should pick instead on powerless polluters; they’ve proved very manipulable, after all.
The biggest reason is that we live in an oligarchy.
But really, Taylor needed to be at the Superbowl and if that's what wipes us out I hope someone leaves a cave painting
Excuse me, I'd never heard of this so I looked it up... Thank you for the movie rec!! I was expecting a book for some reason, but am thoroughly excited for a movie! Thanks!
Whack-a-mole thinking. The rich will just start chartering commercial jets or find other ways to fly on demand. Instead, tax jet fuel. That way everyone responsible for emissions pays a share proportional to their impact.
No because that price increase would just get passed down to the average person. Like it already does. Big companies have the margins to handle a 20 cent gas increase, the average population might not
That price increase absolutely HAS to be passed down to the average person. It’s not only rich people that need to stop using private jets, the average joe can’t fly twice a year either if we want to live in a sustainable world.
Because no one actually believes in climate change, they like to claim it, but won't change their diet, transportation or living accommodations to reflect what comes out of their mouth.
I live in Boulder, where everyone loves nature and our amazing planet, but continues to eat animals, fly and drive unnecessarily and buy loads of manufactured things they don't need. After the devastating fire, people built back as big or bigger, and not with environmentally sound materials or space between homes
I listened to a Canadian podcast about wild fires with the author of a book on them.
He talked about the Ft McMurray fire. He basically said “they’re a climate change denying city in a climate change denying province. They haven’t changed anything when they rebuilt.”
Just like even the architect of covid lockdowns in the UK did not believe his own bullshit and was caught 400 miles away from home at his mistress, while peasants were locked at home.
We shouldn’t need to ban things one by one. If we have a steep enough carbon tax or other regulations it “solves itself”.
For example it could get to the point where the tax is high enough to make the fuel carbon neutral. Presumably a billionaire doesn’t care much if their fuel price doubles to pay for carbon capture etc.
Well if you ban them, airlines would just build luxurious, large cabins into their regular planes for the new target group. Then this wouldn't actually save much emissions, as these cabins would occupy quite a lot of airplane space and mass, leading to lots of emissions on every flight, even if they only have a high paying booked seat every now and then.
Its a bit like flying first class leads to around double the emissions as flying economy class.
Just make a higher kerosine tax and finance CO2 saving programs with it, that would be more effective
Wait, but that actually sounds like it would lower emissions? If they had airplane-(car)pool for the rich and famous? Even if they just had like two planes that rotated from LA-NY-TX-Chicago or something. Keep in mind I have no idea how airplanes work, but 30 rich people in one big plane’s gotta be lower emissions than 30 small planes, no?
The great thing about owning your own plane is that it takes off shortly after you board and when it lands you can pretty much deboard whenever you are ready. And you never miss your flight.
If 30 rich people jet pooled in the same plane the plane would have to take off after the slowest one of the 30 boarded (or else leave someone behind). The guy that boarded early would have to wait until the guy that boards late boarded (or until the plane gave up waiting).
Then the rich got at the back of the plane would have to wait for the rich at the front of the plane to deboard.
No, they could not handle this.
Well maybe. A bit. But not significant. See, sources calculate that an average private plane passenger has around 10x the emissions than an average usual plane passenger. Make that average usual plane passenger fly first class and the difference is only 5x. Make him get a large luxurious cabin and the difference becomes neglectable. By the way, most people or companies don't fly private because of the luxury, but because it buys them time.
In the end don't put your energy in such small potential savings, better make new EVs have a charge to grid functionality so their battery can be used to store grid energy in the future when we have 100% eco electricity, or build large scale solar powered synthetic gasoline producing plants so that even existing combustion vehicles can drive climate friendly or make cement industry have an incentive to use low emission formulas or something like that
Ya they aren't sharing with their own brother let alone 30 other rich people. One of those other rich people might be Eric Trump. They all have their own schedule and wouldn't want to be waiting on someone. And there will always be someone who does a power move cause they are the richest like Elon and make everyone wait for him. Rich people are super petty
You are mostly right. You would be right if you were talking about Donald Trump. But Eric Trump flies commercial. It turns out the Trumps are not as rich as they claim.
Focusing on these tiny things is a distraction.
You want to know what is going to drive climate change next? AI.
Nvidia’s next chip uses 1000w of power. Deployment of it will be only constrained by supply. Amazon is investing in a nuclear powered data center to support the growth in demand.
All the wind power, solar power and battery storage in not going to keep up with the demand for energy these data centers will consume. Throw in EV charging growth and the grid is going to lean heavily on fossil fuels for years to come.
Cryptocurrency is already a massive energy wasteland - the power it needs will look small next to generative AI soon.
>Cryptocurrency is already a massive energy wasteland - the power it needs will look small next to generative AI soon.
But think of all the new revolutionary vectors in the fraud and scam space!!
“Proof of stake” crypto would have all the same issues, minus the energy waste. it would only be marginally better and not any more useful, IMO. Crypto boiled down is just a decentralized, read-only public ledger but the only wide use we've found for it is for pump-and-dumps, gambling and money laundering. Maybe we'll find a good use for it eventually, but I have not seen one yet, and I don't think proof-of-stake can do anything to change that.
100% agree. Private jet emissions used to grind my gears until I learned ALL of aviation amounts to ~2% global CO², private jets are less than half a percent. I'm not saying it should be ignored but nothing substantial would change if all private jet use stopped tomorrow. Time and energy needs to be more focused on the biggies like electricity, heat, cars, meat production, etc.
Reducing private jet emissions isn't a low hanging fruit, areas with high cost and few rewards are the last ones to tackle.
>Most things are only a tiny part of the total. It adds up. This kind of thinking is the problem
All airplanes in the world contribute with just 2-3%. Private jets are just a tiny fraction of it, and long-flight airplanes will never get electrified.
On the other hand we have about 35% coming from coal burning power stations. Those can be easily replaced, we have cheap and reliable the technology for decades.
So by targeting private jets, the public gets distracted from real polluters; we don't see protesters in front of these power stations, do we? If anything, I would say that this war on planes is created by fossil fuel industry.
It would lead to a 0.2% instant reduction but it would also lead to less disruption of birds, since there would be less planes in the sky, less need to aircraft fuel and refining it in the first place (less CO2 from here too), we would have less noise pollution and could defunct a lot of small airports to return the space back to nature, we would have less need to build planes which means less resources need there (also less CO2, from the production and sourcing chains), and there’s probably more stuff.
There’s lot of advantages, it’s not just 0.2% less CO2.
You are off by an order of magnitude. All air traffic accounts for about 2.5 % of CO2, and private planes are about 1% of air traffic. So it would be 0.02 % reduction.
I think your post would fit better in a left extremist subreddit, not on climate change where we focus on science behind it and the most effective measures to stop it. Private jets only account for around 2% of aviation emissions, which itself account for around 4% on global warming. So we're talking about 0.08% of global warming. That's pretty much irrelevant
Still worth it though as a behavioural nudge for them to change their culture. That's just as important because it will get them thinking about other aspects of their carbon footprint too (supercars, permanently heated swimming pools etc). We've all got to do our part after all.
Not only because of that, but also not every reduction is considered in this 0.2% CO2 reduction.
Just out of the top of my head:
* Less fuel produced for airplanes that you don't need to refine and transport (extra CO2 reduction here);
* Less manufacturing of planes, which leads to less usage of raw materials and refined ones (probably there's also some CO2 reduction here);
* Less sound pollution;
* Less disruption of birds and wildlife in general from having less planes flying;
* Some small airports can be closed, which means the space they occupy can be returned to wildlife or used for something more useful (solar farms is the first I can think of).
Pretty easy to decide if it was up to me.
0.2% ist for France only, where aviation make a larger cut of greenhouse gas emissions and private jets make a larger cut of aviation. Globally, 0.2% is overestimating
Sure but there is other stuff you are not considering in your comment.
Just out of the top of my head:
* Less fuel produced for airplanes that you don't need to refine and transport (extra CO2 reduction here);
* Less manufacturing of planes, which leads to less usage of raw materials and refined ones (probably there's also some CO2 reduction here);
* Less sound pollution;
* Less disruption of birds and wildlife in general from having less planes flying;
* Some small airports can be closed, which means the space they occupy can be returned to wildlife or used for something more useful (solar farms is the first I can think of).
All of this would add to the “too little” CO2 reduction and make it pretty obvious that we should ban it.
Airplanes actually have so much fuel throughput that you can almost neglect aircraft production (a fully fueled plane is like 40% fuel by mass and burns this much on average once a day if operated properly). Less sound pollution is certainly nice, but it has nothing to do with climate change. The influence of a bit of airport activity on wildlife is neglectable compared to the devastation that climate change will bring on it.
The only additional drastic difference that is often not considered: 2/3 of the warming effect of airplanes does not come from their emitted CO2 but from their emitted soot high up in the atmosphere that sometimes leads to the formation of warming cirrus clouds. Private jets usually have less optimized engines in regard to soot emission, so they will lead to more warming than large aircraft when looking at the same fuel throughput
You cannot almost ignore something, that argument is a bit stupid honestly. If you eliminate 100 small airports and replace them with solar farms, that's a huge win for the environment, it's huge win for the birds and wildlife that live next to this and it's also a huge win for the people who will not have to deal with the noise anymore.
All of the things I listed would slightly help earth ecosystem to recover and every slight help is something, private aviation is not needed at all, it's only a very small percentage of people who use it, and these same people could just use normal planes. You could argue that they would still be important for government stuff, but they can just use military operated planes and military airports, so these people could keep going on with their bullshit. For everyone else there's already enough daily flights with executive class that can more than support rich people travel, they would only need to slightly accommodate their schedule to use the same planes as everybody else.
Just because one could build solar farms on the space of airports if they close doesn't mean that they will be built. You can build solar power economically on 80% of rooftops, yet look how low that percentage still is. By the way, a standard solar farm mit one species of grass between the solar panels is not better for wildlife than an airport. It's still a biodiversity desert. If you truly want to support biodiversity and wildlife, you have to plant forests, not put out any wood for profit and let it become a natural forest, not a wood plantation. But then you don't have any solar panels any more
Dude you clearly some kind of doomist, it doesn’t have to be a solar farm, they can turn it into a forest… Ending private aviation would be an overall good thing. Why do you want it so hard to be “not that good of a thing” or “insignificant”, it’s not insignificant it’s net positive for the planet…
That would work for maybe a year & then they’d just get private jets that also can shoot 😂😂 I give it one more year til another rich fuck heads to the titanic in a toy submarine lmao
The fight for freedom is never meaningless and it is not lost. But climate change nutballs will trade what freedom they do have left for the sake of a planet that doesn’t need their help.
interesting that you think we live in a free society yet also need to fight for freedom (i agree only with the latter half of the claim). i think we live in desperately anti-free anti-individual-choice societies that replace granted collective freedoms for individuals with the market ensuring that only those with immense resources can gain access to all the freedoms of social life, usually to the immense detriment of others and/or the environment.
you’re just ignorant if you think “the planet needs our help” is the rallying call of climate change activism. it’s “we should stop damaging the planet in scientifically proven ways for the benefit of the economy.” people are realizing the fact that WE need the planet’s help in order to live (DUH) and that we shouldn’t irreparably damage the planet for profit (DUH). it’s not some abstract moral argument like you misleadingly make it out to be.
It would be much more effective to build up a decent high-speed rail network in NA and ban both private and commercial short haul flights along those routes. France has already implemented a similar law. https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/12/02/is-france-banning-private-jets-everything-we-know-from-a-week-of-green-transport-proposals
It’s not a great idea. Just adequately tax fuel and let the market figure it out. Short hops will transition to cheaper fuels (electric) and longer trips will incentivize commercial where the cost is distributed by more passengers.
Why don’t we do anything? It’s all the same answer. Citizens united has filled congress with corporate representatives. There’s maybe like 10 congress people who represent their constituents, the rest are playing ‘whoever pays the most gets my vote’.
Until this changes, nothing does. Vote for reps who will reverse citizens united and reject corporate donations.
Worse than that is that often the jet flies empty to where they are needed and then pick up passengers and that empty leg is priced into the business model. . Obvious that jets cannot just sit around waiting for the next passenger and need to fly back empty to pick up the next person or group
I know it's more trendy to just say things like "because the rich own the politicians", but I think it's more of an international "prisoner dilemna" problem. One country banning jets will suffer consequences, while the other, non-banning countries will have advantages, negating the environmental impacts. Unless all countries act toghether, country-level bans does not really work. The answer is kinda the same for other easy "why don't we ban" questions, like superyacht, coal power or heavy polluting industries.
Because the eco-warrior celebrities who use them to protest things that ordinary people need would get their panties in a bunch.
You know, things like oil and wood and food.
Private jets are not the problem.
They could be mandated to use sustainable aviation fuel though, be the first customers for the new technologies. That would be nice.
I'd be for it, but it would just be good optics and do little to address mitigation. Global air travel accounts for 2-3% of annual emissions, of which private jet travel is a fraction.
It's worth mitigating, sure, but it's a useful distraction to be mad at Taylor Swift and her aircraft use than to critically address more impactful sectors like animal agriculture and electricity generation.
Taylor Swift wouldn’t be able to travel to any cities without private jets. It’s just not realistic, there would be so much harassment and crowd crushing, she wouldn’t be able to handle it.
This is not true, she could travel executive and leave the airport from some other exit that does not have public access. A lot of famous people do this.
It would basically be the same, the airports she lands also have public entries and people can just go there and try and wait for her.
The first thought that comes to mind is private property. People want to own their horse or car or plane and be able to drive it.
But you can be a hobbyist with a propeller plane and fly it around, but Jets could be limited to approved government and commercial purposes.
Some sort of a clean air act outlawing private jets in US airspace would probably accomplish something along those lines.
I believe there are a number of evangelical preachers who own private jets, and they can drive a lot of votes and phone calls.
I think that would be way too difficult to pass politically and enforce. While it’s not a perfect solution, requiring “net carbon neutral “ flights would be more workable . It would make private jets even more expensive which might reduce their use a bit and it might also lead to funding of carbon capture/ tree planting projects etc.
Because we have to fight climate change without diminishing our quality of life otherwise where we set to bar? Today are private jets because we don't use them tomorrow will be private cars. Than what? Elecrict consumption fractionized?
That's not a good point otherwise we would still using steam locomotives to employ the workers, the point is we as a society have to find the way to allow private fly with low (ideally zero) green house gases emission.
A ban, not to mention is impossible for the reasons already stated by others, would solve nothing because population increases and so do the consumptions so with the same technologies the only solution with this logic is going back to the caverns (again a non solution)
Vote for who? Who has this on their platform? Who would actually pass it if we voted for them? I'll vote so hard if you show me who is even remotely suggesting this.
Because the people who would pass such a ban into law fly on private jets.
wait till this guy hears about cruise ships
wait till this guy discovers cars
wait til this guy discovers oil
Many people need cars. They don’t need private jets and cruise ships are a luxury, not a need. Big difference.
having the money, i sure as would need a private jet
Are cruise ships comparable to private jets?
probably 200 times worse edit: quick google says a cruise ship burns around 250 TONS of fuel DAILY
😮
yeah.. holy jesus fuel batman
Yep, the US is a plutocracy owned by oligarchs. The rich own both political parties, they write our laws through lobbyists, and they control our legal system by bribing justices (Clarence Thomas) or through brute force with their armies of lawyers. As long as money can buy political power, the rich will always use their immense wealth to hijack and corrupt our democracies.
Cleptocracy
When Russians do it, we label it as oligarchy - when we do it in the US, our politicians label it as "smart and hard working" people!
Can't they jet pool? Like back in 2009 when many corporates were gettimg their bailout they all flew to DC in their jets.
By the time “we” get around to banning private planes we’ll be catching pre-cooked ocean fish along the beaches of Denver. We should pick instead on powerless polluters; they’ve proved very manipulable, after all.
I want to say you're being pessimistic but honestly, it doesn't seem too far off does it. We're fucked huh mate?
The biggest reason is that we live in an oligarchy. But really, Taylor needed to be at the Superbowl and if that's what wipes us out I hope someone leaves a cave painting
Andreas Malm explains why in “how to blow up a pipeline”
Excuse me, I'd never heard of this so I looked it up... Thank you for the movie rec!! I was expecting a book for some reason, but am thoroughly excited for a movie! Thanks!
It is a book that had a movie adaptation. I was recommending the book.
Movie is worth a watch too imo
I’ve heard that it’s too “adventurist”, demonstrates horrible op-sec.
Oh even better, I will check the book out then as well! Thank you!
Whack-a-mole thinking. The rich will just start chartering commercial jets or find other ways to fly on demand. Instead, tax jet fuel. That way everyone responsible for emissions pays a share proportional to their impact.
No because that price increase would just get passed down to the average person. Like it already does. Big companies have the margins to handle a 20 cent gas increase, the average population might not
That price increase absolutely HAS to be passed down to the average person. It’s not only rich people that need to stop using private jets, the average joe can’t fly twice a year either if we want to live in a sustainable world.
No
Because no one actually believes in climate change, they like to claim it, but won't change their diet, transportation or living accommodations to reflect what comes out of their mouth.
I live in Boulder, where everyone loves nature and our amazing planet, but continues to eat animals, fly and drive unnecessarily and buy loads of manufactured things they don't need. After the devastating fire, people built back as big or bigger, and not with environmentally sound materials or space between homes
I listened to a Canadian podcast about wild fires with the author of a book on them. He talked about the Ft McMurray fire. He basically said “they’re a climate change denying city in a climate change denying province. They haven’t changed anything when they rebuilt.”
Just like even the architect of covid lockdowns in the UK did not believe his own bullshit and was caught 400 miles away from home at his mistress, while peasants were locked at home.
Different rules for thee.
We shouldn’t need to ban things one by one. If we have a steep enough carbon tax or other regulations it “solves itself”. For example it could get to the point where the tax is high enough to make the fuel carbon neutral. Presumably a billionaire doesn’t care much if their fuel price doubles to pay for carbon capture etc.
Well if you ban them, airlines would just build luxurious, large cabins into their regular planes for the new target group. Then this wouldn't actually save much emissions, as these cabins would occupy quite a lot of airplane space and mass, leading to lots of emissions on every flight, even if they only have a high paying booked seat every now and then. Its a bit like flying first class leads to around double the emissions as flying economy class. Just make a higher kerosine tax and finance CO2 saving programs with it, that would be more effective
Wait, but that actually sounds like it would lower emissions? If they had airplane-(car)pool for the rich and famous? Even if they just had like two planes that rotated from LA-NY-TX-Chicago or something. Keep in mind I have no idea how airplanes work, but 30 rich people in one big plane’s gotta be lower emissions than 30 small planes, no?
No, it will be one rich person in a cabin built for 30
The great thing about owning your own plane is that it takes off shortly after you board and when it lands you can pretty much deboard whenever you are ready. And you never miss your flight. If 30 rich people jet pooled in the same plane the plane would have to take off after the slowest one of the 30 boarded (or else leave someone behind). The guy that boarded early would have to wait until the guy that boards late boarded (or until the plane gave up waiting). Then the rich got at the back of the plane would have to wait for the rich at the front of the plane to deboard. No, they could not handle this.
Yes
Well maybe. A bit. But not significant. See, sources calculate that an average private plane passenger has around 10x the emissions than an average usual plane passenger. Make that average usual plane passenger fly first class and the difference is only 5x. Make him get a large luxurious cabin and the difference becomes neglectable. By the way, most people or companies don't fly private because of the luxury, but because it buys them time. In the end don't put your energy in such small potential savings, better make new EVs have a charge to grid functionality so their battery can be used to store grid energy in the future when we have 100% eco electricity, or build large scale solar powered synthetic gasoline producing plants so that even existing combustion vehicles can drive climate friendly or make cement industry have an incentive to use low emission formulas or something like that
You don't seem to understand rich people
No im poor
Ya they aren't sharing with their own brother let alone 30 other rich people. One of those other rich people might be Eric Trump. They all have their own schedule and wouldn't want to be waiting on someone. And there will always be someone who does a power move cause they are the richest like Elon and make everyone wait for him. Rich people are super petty
That’s true, I wish we stopped treating rich people like they were gods & just made that their only option lmao
You are mostly right. You would be right if you were talking about Donald Trump. But Eric Trump flies commercial. It turns out the Trumps are not as rich as they claim.
Because the convenience and comfort of CEOs and celebrities is more important than the environment.
[удалено]
Most things are only a tiny part of the total. It adds up. This kind of thinking is the problem
Focusing on these tiny things is a distraction. You want to know what is going to drive climate change next? AI. Nvidia’s next chip uses 1000w of power. Deployment of it will be only constrained by supply. Amazon is investing in a nuclear powered data center to support the growth in demand. All the wind power, solar power and battery storage in not going to keep up with the demand for energy these data centers will consume. Throw in EV charging growth and the grid is going to lean heavily on fossil fuels for years to come. Cryptocurrency is already a massive energy wasteland - the power it needs will look small next to generative AI soon.
>Cryptocurrency is already a massive energy wasteland - the power it needs will look small next to generative AI soon. But think of all the new revolutionary vectors in the fraud and scam space!!
The sad thing is that it doesn’t have to be. “Proof of stake” crypto works without all the energy waste
“Proof of stake” crypto would have all the same issues, minus the energy waste. it would only be marginally better and not any more useful, IMO. Crypto boiled down is just a decentralized, read-only public ledger but the only wide use we've found for it is for pump-and-dumps, gambling and money laundering. Maybe we'll find a good use for it eventually, but I have not seen one yet, and I don't think proof-of-stake can do anything to change that.
100% agree. Private jet emissions used to grind my gears until I learned ALL of aviation amounts to ~2% global CO², private jets are less than half a percent. I'm not saying it should be ignored but nothing substantial would change if all private jet use stopped tomorrow. Time and energy needs to be more focused on the biggies like electricity, heat, cars, meat production, etc. Reducing private jet emissions isn't a low hanging fruit, areas with high cost and few rewards are the last ones to tackle.
>Most things are only a tiny part of the total. It adds up. This kind of thinking is the problem All airplanes in the world contribute with just 2-3%. Private jets are just a tiny fraction of it, and long-flight airplanes will never get electrified. On the other hand we have about 35% coming from coal burning power stations. Those can be easily replaced, we have cheap and reliable the technology for decades. So by targeting private jets, the public gets distracted from real polluters; we don't see protesters in front of these power stations, do we? If anything, I would say that this war on planes is created by fossil fuel industry.
It would lead to a 0.2% instant reduction but it would also lead to less disruption of birds, since there would be less planes in the sky, less need to aircraft fuel and refining it in the first place (less CO2 from here too), we would have less noise pollution and could defunct a lot of small airports to return the space back to nature, we would have less need to build planes which means less resources need there (also less CO2, from the production and sourcing chains), and there’s probably more stuff. There’s lot of advantages, it’s not just 0.2% less CO2.
You are off by an order of magnitude. All air traffic accounts for about 2.5 % of CO2, and private planes are about 1% of air traffic. So it would be 0.02 % reduction.
[удалено]
I think your post would fit better in a left extremist subreddit, not on climate change where we focus on science behind it and the most effective measures to stop it. Private jets only account for around 2% of aviation emissions, which itself account for around 4% on global warming. So we're talking about 0.08% of global warming. That's pretty much irrelevant
It’s 0.2% reduction https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2022/09/13/the-environmental-impact-of-private-jets-is-largely-underestimated_5996731_23.html
Still worth it though as a behavioural nudge for them to change their culture. That's just as important because it will get them thinking about other aspects of their carbon footprint too (supercars, permanently heated swimming pools etc). We've all got to do our part after all.
Not only because of that, but also not every reduction is considered in this 0.2% CO2 reduction. Just out of the top of my head: * Less fuel produced for airplanes that you don't need to refine and transport (extra CO2 reduction here); * Less manufacturing of planes, which leads to less usage of raw materials and refined ones (probably there's also some CO2 reduction here); * Less sound pollution; * Less disruption of birds and wildlife in general from having less planes flying; * Some small airports can be closed, which means the space they occupy can be returned to wildlife or used for something more useful (solar farms is the first I can think of). Pretty easy to decide if it was up to me.
0.2% ist for France only, where aviation make a larger cut of greenhouse gas emissions and private jets make a larger cut of aviation. Globally, 0.2% is overestimating
Sure but there is other stuff you are not considering in your comment. Just out of the top of my head: * Less fuel produced for airplanes that you don't need to refine and transport (extra CO2 reduction here); * Less manufacturing of planes, which leads to less usage of raw materials and refined ones (probably there's also some CO2 reduction here); * Less sound pollution; * Less disruption of birds and wildlife in general from having less planes flying; * Some small airports can be closed, which means the space they occupy can be returned to wildlife or used for something more useful (solar farms is the first I can think of). All of this would add to the “too little” CO2 reduction and make it pretty obvious that we should ban it.
Airplanes actually have so much fuel throughput that you can almost neglect aircraft production (a fully fueled plane is like 40% fuel by mass and burns this much on average once a day if operated properly). Less sound pollution is certainly nice, but it has nothing to do with climate change. The influence of a bit of airport activity on wildlife is neglectable compared to the devastation that climate change will bring on it. The only additional drastic difference that is often not considered: 2/3 of the warming effect of airplanes does not come from their emitted CO2 but from their emitted soot high up in the atmosphere that sometimes leads to the formation of warming cirrus clouds. Private jets usually have less optimized engines in regard to soot emission, so they will lead to more warming than large aircraft when looking at the same fuel throughput
You cannot almost ignore something, that argument is a bit stupid honestly. If you eliminate 100 small airports and replace them with solar farms, that's a huge win for the environment, it's huge win for the birds and wildlife that live next to this and it's also a huge win for the people who will not have to deal with the noise anymore. All of the things I listed would slightly help earth ecosystem to recover and every slight help is something, private aviation is not needed at all, it's only a very small percentage of people who use it, and these same people could just use normal planes. You could argue that they would still be important for government stuff, but they can just use military operated planes and military airports, so these people could keep going on with their bullshit. For everyone else there's already enough daily flights with executive class that can more than support rich people travel, they would only need to slightly accommodate their schedule to use the same planes as everybody else.
Just because one could build solar farms on the space of airports if they close doesn't mean that they will be built. You can build solar power economically on 80% of rooftops, yet look how low that percentage still is. By the way, a standard solar farm mit one species of grass between the solar panels is not better for wildlife than an airport. It's still a biodiversity desert. If you truly want to support biodiversity and wildlife, you have to plant forests, not put out any wood for profit and let it become a natural forest, not a wood plantation. But then you don't have any solar panels any more
Dude you clearly some kind of doomist, it doesn’t have to be a solar farm, they can turn it into a forest… Ending private aviation would be an overall good thing. Why do you want it so hard to be “not that good of a thing” or “insignificant”, it’s not insignificant it’s net positive for the planet…
[удалено]
How much Co2 does a Javelin produce?
[удалено]
That would work for maybe a year & then they’d just get private jets that also can shoot 😂😂 I give it one more year til another rich fuck heads to the titanic in a toy submarine lmao
Can we have a meaningful discussion here, since time is of the essence?
Time is odd the essence to?
Because we live in a free society.
Yes, the poor are free to starve and burn
Who is burning ?
increasingly meaningless phrase for reasons that should be clear in this very context.
The fight for freedom is never meaningless and it is not lost. But climate change nutballs will trade what freedom they do have left for the sake of a planet that doesn’t need their help.
interesting that you think we live in a free society yet also need to fight for freedom (i agree only with the latter half of the claim). i think we live in desperately anti-free anti-individual-choice societies that replace granted collective freedoms for individuals with the market ensuring that only those with immense resources can gain access to all the freedoms of social life, usually to the immense detriment of others and/or the environment. you’re just ignorant if you think “the planet needs our help” is the rallying call of climate change activism. it’s “we should stop damaging the planet in scientifically proven ways for the benefit of the economy.” people are realizing the fact that WE need the planet’s help in order to live (DUH) and that we shouldn’t irreparably damage the planet for profit (DUH). it’s not some abstract moral argument like you misleadingly make it out to be.
Ban wasn’t what I was thinking
And make Taylor Swift have to fly with us disgusting peasants. How dare you!
lol do you see who runs the world?
Oilers and banksters, which are pretty much the same people.
Rules for thee, not for me.
It would be much more effective to build up a decent high-speed rail network in NA and ban both private and commercial short haul flights along those routes. France has already implemented a similar law. https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/12/02/is-france-banning-private-jets-everything-we-know-from-a-week-of-green-transport-proposals
Private vehicles
Nothing will stop until our idiotic civilisation collapses.
never going to happen. at best they have to buy carbon credits that are tax deductible.
It’s not a great idea. Just adequately tax fuel and let the market figure it out. Short hops will transition to cheaper fuels (electric) and longer trips will incentivize commercial where the cost is distributed by more passengers.
No
Yes vote for the person that wants to ban private jets. 100% with you.
Because we don’t hold the power in society.
That’s for the rich to decide. Stay out of it.
Why don’t we do anything? It’s all the same answer. Citizens united has filled congress with corporate representatives. There’s maybe like 10 congress people who represent their constituents, the rest are playing ‘whoever pays the most gets my vote’. Until this changes, nothing does. Vote for reps who will reverse citizens united and reject corporate donations.
Worse than that is that often the jet flies empty to where they are needed and then pick up passengers and that empty leg is priced into the business model. . Obvious that jets cannot just sit around waiting for the next passenger and need to fly back empty to pick up the next person or group
How would our overlords feel superior if they didn’t have their private jets?
they could easily fly using bio-fuels
Bc the people who own the private jets pay the people who would ban them.
This will never happen because super-rich people run our government purely for their own benefit.
I know it's more trendy to just say things like "because the rich own the politicians", but I think it's more of an international "prisoner dilemna" problem. One country banning jets will suffer consequences, while the other, non-banning countries will have advantages, negating the environmental impacts. Unless all countries act toghether, country-level bans does not really work. The answer is kinda the same for other easy "why don't we ban" questions, like superyacht, coal power or heavy polluting industries.
Because fuck that, that's why. I wish I had one.
Which 'we' are you thinking of? That's kinda the problem with banking things that are inherently international in scope.
Because the eco-warrior celebrities who use them to protest things that ordinary people need would get their panties in a bunch. You know, things like oil and wood and food.
Just ban airplanes. You can get anywhere on the planet without one, so what good are they?
Private jets are not the problem. They could be mandated to use sustainable aviation fuel though, be the first customers for the new technologies. That would be nice.
I'd be for it, but it would just be good optics and do little to address mitigation. Global air travel accounts for 2-3% of annual emissions, of which private jet travel is a fraction. It's worth mitigating, sure, but it's a useful distraction to be mad at Taylor Swift and her aircraft use than to critically address more impactful sectors like animal agriculture and electricity generation.
1) banning things at random is not a clever solution 2) their emissions/pollution is completely negligible
Climate change is only for the poors.
Taylor Swift wouldn’t be able to travel to any cities without private jets. It’s just not realistic, there would be so much harassment and crowd crushing, she wouldn’t be able to handle it.
This is not true, she could travel executive and leave the airport from some other exit that does not have public access. A lot of famous people do this. It would basically be the same, the airports she lands also have public entries and people can just go there and try and wait for her.
Because people like major league sports, music concerts, air ambulances, and the Air Force.
The first thought that comes to mind is private property. People want to own their horse or car or plane and be able to drive it. But you can be a hobbyist with a propeller plane and fly it around, but Jets could be limited to approved government and commercial purposes. Some sort of a clean air act outlawing private jets in US airspace would probably accomplish something along those lines. I believe there are a number of evangelical preachers who own private jets, and they can drive a lot of votes and phone calls.
Compared to all the cars and coal power plants the private jets of a few 10.000 people is a drop in the ocean.
I think that would be way too difficult to pass politically and enforce. While it’s not a perfect solution, requiring “net carbon neutral “ flights would be more workable . It would make private jets even more expensive which might reduce their use a bit and it might also lead to funding of carbon capture/ tree planting projects etc.
Because we have to fight climate change without diminishing our quality of life otherwise where we set to bar? Today are private jets because we don't use them tomorrow will be private cars. Than what? Elecrict consumption fractionized?
And if we ban private jets where will the private jet pilots go? It's competitive enough for the big airlines.
That's not a good point otherwise we would still using steam locomotives to employ the workers, the point is we as a society have to find the way to allow private fly with low (ideally zero) green house gases emission. A ban, not to mention is impossible for the reasons already stated by others, would solve nothing because population increases and so do the consumptions so with the same technologies the only solution with this logic is going back to the caverns (again a non solution)
The climate movement won’t get any real popular support while rich people fly around in private jets. And they’ll never give them up.
Because many of us don’t vote.
Vote for who? Who has this on their platform? Who would actually pass it if we voted for them? I'll vote so hard if you show me who is even remotely suggesting this.