141–150 of 151 posts
It would be equally important to make a graph of how much CO2 they offset by paying taxes, even if only theoretically.
Paying taxes absolutely increases CO2 consumption because you are enabling the US military to conduct wasteful operations around the world. We should pay less taxes because the government is extremely wasteful and polluting overall.
US military is the only reason you don't know what war is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not true. The carbon emissions of rich people are enormous compared to that of regular people. Here’s just one finding, that the richest 1% of the world’s population cause as much carbon emissions as the poorest 50%: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/21/worlds-r...
The richest 1% in the world is 80 million people, a god chunk of the Western population. Private jets are a distraction from the real sources of emissions. But people start rioting when their power bills go up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh I'm sorry asking you to backup your thoughts with actual data is a problem for you. 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 at a high point of also say 800 tons (which is likely high but easy math). That works out to 640000 tons of CO2 from all the billionaires flying around i…
> > That means these flights are accounting for 0.0123076923% of the USA's CO2 production ... or put another way it's a rounding error. This is not about the percentage of CO2 over the total. People don't want to be chastised by hypocrites, it's the same as a President who declares that "heavy human losses are a price to pay for victory" and then exempts his 2 sons from serving. 2 soldiers are nothing in the face of…
But that's not what the person I was speaking with was arguing for they wanted a cap on CO2 emissions on an individual basis.
As far as being "chastised by hypocrites" how many of the billionares that were mentioned are out there "chastising" people - keeping in mind there is a difference between chastising (ie. Hey, you average citizen you're doing something wrong stop it) and bringing awareness to an issue (ie. Climate change is impacting the planet).
Someone using a massive platform (fame) to spread a message that they may not fully buy into but is for the greater good isn't a terrible thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Atlanta to Savannah and then depart again 2 hours later Savannah is such a hidden and unique gem, and truly one of the most beautiful cities in the country. It's not hard to imagine taking a quick meeting there. Lots of important people flow through the city. I'm hoping we get high speed rail on the Atlanta-Savannah corridor one day. The drive is a real slog and it's filled with deceptively unfair speed traps from…
I'll take a guess you got caught speeding.
I'm not sure about the accuracy of this data. It gives Taylor Swift's plane as N989TS, but N989TS is registered to a couple who live in Arizona: https://registry.faa.gov/AircraftInquiry/Search/NNumberResul... and is a tiny single-prop aircraft. I don't think you could go cross-country in it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> > That means these flights are accounting for 0.0123076923% of the USA's CO2 production ... or put another way it's a rounding error. This is not about the percentage of CO2 over the total. People don't want to be chastised by hypocrites, it's the same as a President who declares that "heavy human losses are a price to pay for victory" and then exempts his 2 sons from serving. 2 soldiers are nothing in the face of…
>should be ground for removal from the public discourse about climate change. But that's not what the person I was speaking with was arguing for they wanted a cap on CO2 emissions on an individual basis. As far as being "chastised by hypocrites" how many of the billionares that were mentioned are out there "chastising" people - keeping in mind there is a difference between chastising (ie. Hey, you average citizen you…
The moment a famous person says “we should” instead of “I should” they are chastising people
What is the point of this? Why do people care? Do you expect these people to fly commercial like you and me? Hoping for that fateful day when you're sandwiched between Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos on a Ryanair flight, so you can give them your elevator speech with all three of your knees pressed up against your nostrils? Taylor Swift would be mobbed everywhere in the airport. Donald was a former president. The Secret Se…
I don't even think that these people need to "justify" their energy use. It seems that the vast majority of people have an innate need to hate on other groups of people. Not only that, but it seems that when presented with a cross-cutting societal problem (like carbon neutrality), "hating on others" seems to be a substitute for actually doing something intelligent about the problem. Our society is fundamentally based…
That seems like nonsense to me. And if it wasn't, if they had an actual need for that, who are you to criticize it?
Pointing towards this to help reconcile some of the hypocrisy from celebrity messaging seems productive towards better discourse on climate change imo
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>should be ground for removal from the public discourse about climate change. But that's not what the person I was speaking with was arguing for they wanted a cap on CO2 emissions on an individual basis. As far as being "chastised by hypocrites" how many of the billionares that were mentioned are out there "chastising" people - keeping in mind there is a difference between chastising (ie. Hey, you average citizen you…
> > Someone using a massive platform (fame) to spread a message that they may not fully buy into but is for the greater good isn't a terrible thing. The moment a famous person says “we should” instead of “I should” they are chastising people
Saying "we should" is not chastising anyone - saying "you're evil for doing" would be chastising.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> > Someone using a massive platform (fame) to spread a message that they may not fully buy into but is for the greater good isn't a terrible thing. The moment a famous person says “we should” instead of “I should” they are chastising people
Define Chastise: rebuke or reprimand severely. Saying "we should" is not chastising anyone - saying "you're evil for doing" would be chastising.
Same thing for the PR of mr. Gates and the constant noise put into every media by mr. Musk.
So yes whatever you want to call it the point stands. Normal people don't like it and the approval rating goes down everywhere for the public person who does it, except among the fake circles of the Oscars and the Met Gala where swarms of aspiring celebrities don't miss a chance to give a good blowie and fluffing to what is perceived to be the celebrity of the moment who appeared the most all over media to virtue signal