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

Celebrity Flights

celebrityflight.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 151 posts

Re: Celebrity Flights

#101

Post by monkeywork »

warent wrote: post #92
monkeywork wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Not sure why you're so deeply triggered by this; is your name on that list that you would be personally affected? Your only response to someone finding this a gross overreach is to try and strawman them by suggesting I'm personally on the list? I'm not defending billionaires any more than I'm defending an average person. Going down the road suggested (putting yearly or lifetime caps on how much CO2 you can produce)…

Maybe the disconnect here is a misunderstanding of how much wealth billionaires have. We could increase fuel tax by 1000x, increase landing fees by 1000x, and this would not even begin to give billionaires pause on waste and excess flying. The average person will be priced out by taxes and increased fees far long before any mega wealthy person will even feel it as a stiff breeze against their accounts.

Or maybe the disconnect is on the other side of the coin, let's say every billionaire on that list did zero flights next year - how much of a reduction in the US CO2 emissions does that actually result in. Does it equate in any meaningful (statistically) way or does it just make people like yourself "feel" better?

Re: Celebrity Flights

#102

Post by JumpinJack_Cash »

victorbjorklund wrote: post #85
mcbrienollie wrote: post #22

Since 99.9% of the flights and the people are already registered, there should be a worldwide limitation per each of the person for CO2 emissions.

"Sorry, the president of country X cant come to UN and discuss a ceasefire because he already ysed up all his emissions so the war has to keep going until the next CO2 reset"

They go to NYC to hit Nobu and bang the elite escorts let's not act like problems cannot be solved remotely, we did it for 2 years.

Especially diplomatic problems are about tit for tat.

Kennedy and Kruschev disengaged the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 via letters taking 8 hours to reach the other party

Re: Celebrity Flights

#103

Post by mrshadowgoose »

mcbrienollie wrote: post #82
mrshadowgoose wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No thank you. There's no need for that. Instead of this petty, divisive and hostile nonsense, how about we just acknowledge that our civilization is fundamentally based on energy use, and work towards making all our energy use carbon-neutral? Our planet receives enough harnessable solar energy to allow every single human being an energy allocation far in excess of a typical American. There's absolutely no need to be…

I totally agree with the fundamental changes. Rest is bullshit. What would be your suggestion on Kardaishan's energy consumption levels? Having a crash course?

> What would be your suggestion on Kardaishan's energy consumption levels? Having a crash course?

Couldn't care less. Seriously, go do the math on how much energy is available to us. It will blow your ignorant little mind.

Re: Celebrity Flights

#104

Post by warent »

monkeywork wrote: post #101
warent wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the disconnect here is a misunderstanding of how much wealth billionaires have. We could increase fuel tax by 1000x, increase landing fees by 1000x, and this would not even begin to give billionaires pause on waste and excess flying. The average person will be priced out by taxes and increased fees far long before any mega wealthy person will even feel it as a stiff breeze against their accounts.

Or maybe the disconnect is on the other side of the coin, let's say every billionaire on that list did zero flights next year - how much of a reduction in the US CO2 emissions does that actually result in. Does it equate in any meaningful (statistically) way or does it just make people like yourself "feel" better?

Well, I'm glad we're finally on the same page that you are in fact specifically defending top-consuming billionaires. Conversation ends here

Re: Celebrity Flights

#105

Post by seeknotfind »

mcbrienollie wrote: post #50
seeknotfind wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ability to restrict something doesn't imply it's ideal to restrict that thing. Some people should use more CO2, just like some people should go to space, or some people should be lawyer.

This can be adapted into different scenarios or use cases. At least it could be the first action into the CO2 emission problem that everybody is complaining about but nobody really does a thing. Well, also maybe we can let Kim Kardashian to have Zoom calls rather than taking flights.

Yeah no problem with a limit, only with a per capita limit

Re: Celebrity Flights

#106

Post by lxgr »

mrshadowgoose wrote: post #79
mcbrienollie wrote: post #22

Since 99.9% of the flights and the people are already registered, there should be a worldwide limitation per each of the person for CO2 emissions.

No thank you. There's no need for that. Instead of this petty, divisive and hostile nonsense, how about we just acknowledge that our civilization is fundamentally based on energy use, and work towards making all our energy use carbon-neutral? Our planet receives enough harnessable solar energy to allow every single human being an energy allocation far in excess of a typical American. There's absolutely no need to be…

> Our planet receives enough harnessable solar energy to allow every single human being an energy allocation far in excess of a typical American.

Yes, but is it currently being harvested? Do we have a plausible path towards that future?

> There's absolutely no need to be hostile towards other people's energy use.

No, but there's a dire need to properly account for the externalities of everybody's CO2 emissions if we want to be able to plausibly call our economy market-based.

Re: Celebrity Flights

#107

Post by jrockway »

southernplaces7 wrote: post #100
sjm-lbm wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt he was on board for that flight. Generally , flights like that one exist because the airplane is somewhere other than the most convenient place for the owner to take off from, so the crew repositions the plane in a better location for a more convenient pick up. I don't think that this really invalidates your overall conclusion or anything, just wanted to point that out.

Fair enough, but as you say, doesn't change anything, possibly even makes it worse because that fuel was used entirely for his convenience just to move a plane closer, before he even hopped aboard for his flight.

Commercial airlines routinely move planes from JFK to LGA at night. There is a popular ATC recording of one not having the paperwork to fly IFR, so they want VFR instead. Mildly amusing twist on a common operation.

Re: Celebrity Flights

#108

Post by qeternity »

warent wrote: post #74
monkeywork wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is some high-level authoritarian nonsense right there. Should there also be limits on how many KM's a person can drive a year? How many often the BBQ in their backyard? What is the penalty for exceeding said limit in your fantasy? edit Just out of curiosity I took what seems to be the "average" of the reported number of billionaires in America as 800, and the average yearly CO2 from flying via the linked article…

Not sure why you're so deeply triggered by this; is your name on that list of top consumers that you would be personally affected? Your comment comes across as yet another average joe randomly defending billionaires wrecking the world while we take the consequences of it. Meanwhile yet another daily disaster in nature, 100s of dolphins are dead today from record temperatures https://www.insider.com/dolphins-dead-braz…

> Your comment comes across as yet another average joe randomly defending billionaires wrecking the world while we take the consequences of it.

This is so painfully, hilariously wrong that I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. You could vaporize all billionaires in the world and it wouldn’t make any detectable difference to climate change.

Re: Celebrity Flights

#109

Post by lxgr »

mrshadowgoose wrote: post #103
mcbrienollie wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally agree with the fundamental changes. Rest is bullshit. What would be your suggestion on Kardaishan's energy consumption levels? Having a crash course?

> What would be your suggestion on Kardaishan's energy consumption levels? Having a crash course? Couldn't care less. Seriously, go do the math on how much energy is available to us. It will blow your ignorant little mind.

Nobody is claiming that humanity is at a risk of running out of energy.

The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones either.

Re: Celebrity Flights

#110

Post by jrockway »

jdietrich wrote: post #86
sublinear wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's missing here is a sense of scale. Routine private jet flights are nothing compared to last mile freight such as Amazon. Short frequent trips by delivery drivers from your local warehouse to your doorstep should not be so wasteful. The largest source of pollution is freight in general. Hating on individuals solves nothing at all.

My friendly neighbourhood Amazon driver fills his vehicle with packages, then drives a highly optimised route to deliver those packages to many destinations along the fastest/shortest route. Often when I'm tracking my package, I see that the twenty or thirty deliveries before me are all within a mile or two of my house. At some point soon I expect he'll get an electric van, but other than that, I'm not sure how anyon…

I mean, bicycles would be more efficient. Not faster or requiring less employees, but less emissions.
Post reply on HN