Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

1500 Private Jets Fly to Davos for Climate Talks

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 168 posts

Re: 1500 Private Jets Fly to Davos for Climate Talks

#151

Post by KozmoNau7 »

Dreami wrote: post #31
mattlondon wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought to myself: "Someone who cared could probably have got a train from most of Europe to Davos!" Then I thought about the sort of people that go to these things, and how long the train takes. They're oh so terribly important (sarcasm), that they simply cannot afford the time lost by traveling in anything other than a jet. And that I think is the problem - from the Davos-attendee right down to you and I with our…

I think the problem is security. Here in Switzerland, there's demos in various cities and also of course at Davos. If you would put them in trains, it would be harder to do it safely. (of course, why they even need so much security is another thing)

That this level of security is needed to protect the wealthy elites from the masses really should make you think about how absurd the concentration of wealth and power is.

Re: 1500 Private Jets Fly to Davos for Climate Talks

#152

Post by KozmoNau7 »

diminoten wrote: post #42
DougN7 wrote: post #2

This is such a beautiful example. We all want change, but giving up modern conveniences is so hard. We might mock the people and their private planes but I don’t doubt someone would mock me for my cars, central air conditioning, etc.

This is a silly and pointless conversation. The cost to the environment for 1500 jets once compared to the political improvements that could result is a drop in the bucket.

When those "political improvements" inevitably end up being a further continuation of the unsustainable capitalism status quo, I would rather they not try to improve anything.

Re: 1500 Private Jets Fly to Davos for Climate Talks

#153

Post by dingaling »

leetcrew wrote: post #62
jakobegger wrote: post #23

I don't feel that articles like that contribute to the discussion in a meaningful way. Sure it's fun to point out that politicians are all hypocrits, but it doesn't help anybody at all. There are two possibilities: a) Private Jets are an important source of pollution. Then we should complain about private jets all the time, not just when we want to smear the people who use them to travel to climate talks. b) Or priva…

it's not pointless argument. a bunch of important people are getting together to talk about possible solutions for climate change. such solutions will probably involve significant sacrifices in our standard of living. the fact that they took pretty much the most wasteful means of travel should suggest something about who they expect to make these sacrifices. spoiler: it's not them.

Most wasteful?

The majority of bizjet trips are between airports that don't have direct service. So alternative travel would involve connections with multiple take-offs, which are much more polluting than sitting at cruising altitude.

Re: 1500 Private Jets Fly to Davos for Climate Talks

#154

Post by dingaling »

m52go wrote: post #6

> There appears to be a trend towards larger aircraft, with expensive heavy jets the aircraft of choice > This is partly due to the long distances travelled, he said, “but also possibly due to business rivals not wanting to be seen to be outdone by one another” I don't think we can expect anything substantive coming of a meeting like this. Has anything ever?

One part of his statement is fact ( long ranges necessitate large aircraft ) and the other is conjecture.

There was only one 747 in attendance, from UAE. Then some Boeing BBJs, one Tu-204 and and then lots of Falcons / Gulfstreams / Globals.

If image was important then BBJs would have been the minimum.

Re: 1500 Private Jets Fly to Davos for Climate Talks

#155

Post by evandijk70 »

JetSpiegel wrote: post #114
asdfadsfgfdda wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>The average american adult consumes about 550 gallons of gas a year for driving. It doesn't matter substantially how wealthy you are - there are only so many hours in the day to drive. The wealthiest 10% of Americans by income spend ~$3,000/year on gas, while the poorest 10% spend only $870/year. So looking at only gas purchases, the wealthy do consume much more gas. This could be caused by differences in vehicles…

The top 10% doesn't have 3 times the wealth of the bottom 10%, it's more like millions or more. If the tax is on gas, why should the group without money shoulder 30% of the cost? Just charge all the money to the top 10% and all can benefit, it's almost a rounding error for them.

From the grandparent post:

- If you are at the 10th income percentile, you make $11/hr and society now expects 9 hours of labor from each adult in your household a year to pay for energy transition

- If you are at the 90th income percentile, you make $29/hr, society expects you to work 3.4hrs a year to pay for transition.

The bottom 10% earns 38% of what the the top 10% earns, and pays 30% of the cost. A carbon tax is a progressive tax according to these calculations.

Re: 1500 Private Jets Fly to Davos for Climate Talks

#156

Post by rthomas6 »

jellicle wrote: post #100
rthomas6 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're kind of talking around the parent comment's point. Global corporations don't make that profit in a vacuum, they do it by selling people things they want. Barring huge technological progress, our current way of life has to change to sufficiently lower climate emissions. Regardless of what kind of government system controls industries, for carbon emissions to be sufficiently low, a lot of our current luxuries mu…

Simply untrue. Solar panels are cheap. We do some unsustainable things, for sure, but the idea that everyone has a choice between killing the Earth or living in medieval times and hoeing the mud like some Monty Python peasant is just the rankest sort of bullshit. We do unsustainable things largely because the monetary incentives are to do so. We could easily have advanced, sustainable lifestyles.

Yes, there are some low hanging fruits. My country (USA) is the worst offender. But if you do the math, we can't afford to consume the same amounts we do now with fully sustainable tech. Not yet. I didn't mean to imply we have to swing cats into creeks and dig in the mud with sticks. But we will have to do things like pay more for meat, imported goods, electricity, and gasoline. We still can have them, but they would be more expensive, sometimes a lot more (such as airline travel). There's no way around this. We could have the rich subsidize the cost of these things for the poorer, but regardless, emissions-producing goods will need to be consumed less for emissions to decrease. How could it be any other way?

Emissions from the creation a given good/service can be reduced in 2 ways:

1. Reducing the consumption of said good.

2. Making the good sustainable.

Case 1 means either rationing a good or raising its price. Case 2 means raising the cost of production. In both cases, it costs more to consume the same amount.

Re: 1500 Private Jets Fly to Davos for Climate Talks

#157

Post by tcpekin »

mar77i wrote: post #146
IdiocyInAction wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I come from an area with lots of skiing. Snow cannons, piste bashers, lift maintenance. Skiing is very polluting. Besides, you have to (usually) drive quite a bit to get to the mountain. It's also extremely expensive.

The mountain meadows used for skiing are kind of a mess during the summer. I'm Swiss, and going to ski basically means to be pulled up by a lift and slide back down. The entire concept of it is laughably unproductive, resulting at most in sunburns, sports injuries and further pollution from drunk people at après ski parties. It's preposterous hedonism.

What form of entertainment or sport can you not reduce like this? You could say something in the same vein about jogging, watching TV, cycling, organized sports, etc.

I'm American and going swimming basically means to go nowhere for as long as the exercise lasts. The entire concept of it is laughably unproductive, resulting in at most sunburns, sports injuries, and further pollution from chemicals used to clean the pools. It's preposterous hedonism.

Re: 1500 Private Jets Fly to Davos for Climate Talks

#158

Post by leetcrew »

dingaling wrote: post #153
leetcrew wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not pointless argument. a bunch of important people are getting together to talk about possible solutions for climate change. such solutions will probably involve significant sacrifices in our standard of living. the fact that they took pretty much the most wasteful means of travel should suggest something about who they expect to make these sacrifices. spoiler: it's not them.

Most wasteful? The majority of bizjet trips are between airports that don't have direct service. So alternative travel would involve connections with multiple take-offs, which are much more polluting than sitting at cruising altitude.

> multiple take-offs, which are much more polluting than sitting at cruising altitude.

I highly doubt that non-direct flights on airliners pollute more per passenger than a direct flight on a small jet that isn't necessarily full.

Re: 1500 Private Jets Fly to Davos for Climate Talks

#159

Post by mar77i »

tcpekin wrote: post #157
mar77i wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mountain meadows used for skiing are kind of a mess during the summer. I'm Swiss, and going to ski basically means to be pulled up by a lift and slide back down. The entire concept of it is laughably unproductive, resulting at most in sunburns, sports injuries and further pollution from drunk people at après ski parties. It's preposterous hedonism.

What form of entertainment or sport can you not reduce like this? You could say something in the same vein about jogging, watching TV, cycling, organized sports, etc. I'm American and going swimming basically means to go nowhere for as long as the exercise lasts. The entire concept of it is laughably unproductive, resulting in at most sunburns, sports injuries, and further pollution from chemicals used to clean the p…

Such a pool, assuming you're not the only person using it, is usually a rather well-used patch of land, as opposed to the space needed for an entire skiing resort, considering outdoor pools are also used seasonally. And even if you are the only person using it, you likely still have much more bang per square meter with a pool. I haven't heard of a pool that is as extensive as a skiing resort, stretching through often tens of kilometers of otherwise undisturbed nature.

But yeah, I'll admit it, I don't really believe my feet will decide the vote on where to draw the line here, though, therefore I have to try make skiing look as bad as I possibly can.

Re: 1500 Private Jets Fly to Davos for Climate Talks

#160

Post by dr_dshiv »

normal_man wrote: post #57
eric_b wrote: post #47

Unpopular Opinion: There is no viable solution to climate change through policy or political action. No one wants to give up their own personal comfort or lifestyle for the sake of "the planet." Even people I know who are self-described ardent environmentalists still fly in planes frequently to all manner of touristy destinations so they can keep "collecting experiences." Shit, look at Paris. They champion this clima…

It won't be an extinction event, it will be a gradual decline where the global poor suffer and die by the millions. "People will need to move" is not a realistic solution for massive amounts of people; they will starve, and drown. It's not happening because your friends fly to Burning Man, it's happening because global corporations are seeking profit above all else. Climate change cannot be combatted while capitalism…

Is it just me, or are attacks on "capitalism" really annoying? I feel like it is a straw man army that does nothing but socially signal. Capitalism doesn't function without regulation and neither is capitalism anathema to socialism or even communism (e.g., China). So, attacks on capitalism are vague and counterproductive. What are you saying -- that you want to eliminate markets? That you want to outlaw the profit motive? Inane.
Post reply on HN