Private Jets to Ibiza, Paris Surge as Rich Evade Travel Chaos • Hacker News Board

Re: Private Jets to Ibiza, Paris Surge as Rich Evade Travel Chaos

#61

Post by bluesign » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 3:06 PM UTC

ohgodplsno wrote: post #60

bluesign wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no numbers to back this up, but intuitively I'd put my money on less than 448 hours per year average, do you have any source on this?

First half of 2022 sees over 700 000 hours of flight from Part 135 jets (read: private jets). https://privatejetcardcomparisons.com/2022/08/03/argus-expec... My 448 hours comes from the Top 20 of private charter operators, with a relatively old source. The average went up as the amount of private jetting went way up (more than doubled) ( https://privatejetcardcomparisons.com/2017/07/11/how-many-ho... ). Sure, take th…

I think there is a huge difference between 60 and 448. We are not discussing it is worth or not. We are discussing "30m Wifi-Routers in France running a third of the year while nobody is home not having a larger impact than the 270 private jets being used." or not.

Re: Private Jets to Ibiza, Paris Surge as Rich Evade Travel Chaos

#62

Post by eesmith » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 5:12 PM UTC

newsclues wrote: post #49

londgine wrote: post #16

luckily for them private jets are explicitly exempt from climate change carbon taxes

If climate change was a scam that sounds like it would be true.

Or rich people use their wealth and political power to enrich themselves, not just for cheaper jet fuel, but to spread the false rumor that climate change and global warming is a scam.

Re: Private Jets to Ibiza, Paris Surge as Rich Evade Travel Chaos

#63

Post by candiodari » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 7:56 PM UTC

mola wrote: post #50

mckirk wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ultimately it's a game theoretic problem though, isn't it? Your own personal impact on energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions is negligible, even if you are jetting around in your private jet. Therefore it only matters what all the people 'similar to you' are doing in aggregate, and your decision should be based on that: 'What impact would my decision here have, if the people in similar situations all acted…

Game theoretic thinking brings "stable" but disastarous results. Perhaps now that humanity knows about game theory we should try and find ways to encompass humanism and other values into the pure rationalist model.

Unfortunately "stable" means that they cannot be destroyed by a single actor. So unless you're prepared to use violence against anyone in the world, and "someone" might be Putin or Xi, meaning you'd have to be prepared to fight WW3 ... you'll need a stable solution.