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

525 Private jets departed Las Vegas after the Super Bowl ended

old.reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 115 posts

Re: 525 Private jets departed Las Vegas after the Super Bowl ended

#31

Post by JumpCrisscross »

kiba wrote: post #20
tristor wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All aviation, altogether, private jets inclusive, is less than 3% of world emissions. Getting people fired up about rich people using private jets is just a distraction from the truth in the same way that paper straws are. The reality is that a small handful of industries generate the majority of pollution, and they have no meaningful regulatory pressure to stop, and that even that mostly pales in comparison to the e…

I rather that aviation contributes 1.5% instead of 3%. Of course, industries that pollute more should work harder to reduce their pollution. Rather than banning private jet, we could ask that private jet uses only carbon neutral fuels, since they could afford it. However, it might cause rich people to pollute more by using their cars instead of flying, so there's a balancing act.

> rather that aviation contributes 1.5% instead of 3%

This describes massively raising the cost of package shipment and air travel. (You can’t cut aviation emissions in half with only private jets or even all of general aviation.)

Were that to happen, I know my responses would probably include buying a larger car (to make travel more comfortable) and possibly expanding my house (since I can’t leave it as often). It would probably play differently in Europe, where passenger rail is a real alternative, granted.

> we could ask that private jet uses only carbon neutral fuels

I’m surprised this isn’t already a requirement.

Re: 525 Private jets departed Las Vegas after the Super Bowl ended

#32

Post by [deleted] »

kayodelycaon wrote: post #9
andy_ppp wrote: post #3

Anyone else think banning private jets would be generally a much better thing for climate? I find it pretty shocking the rich are allowed to pollute the way they do.

You’d be better off getting cargo ships to stop using sludge for fuel and getting countries to stop burning coal. Private jets aren’t even close to the worse things. They are just easy targets. Your worst offenders are industry.

[deleted]

Re: 525 Private jets departed Las Vegas after the Super Bowl ended

#33

Post by Supermancho »

baggy_trough wrote: post #21
jjk7 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3% is a pretty big reduction for such a simple thing...

You think getting rid of aviation is a simple thing?

>> 3% is a pretty big reduction for such a simple thing...

> You think getting rid of aviation is a simple thing?

That's not what was suggested, initially. Just the private jets. Then there have been some numbers thrown around, so it's not clear where the 3% comes from (1/2 of 7%?). Kneejerk opposition by taking the least charitable interpretation, is not constructive. One point is that something measurable, is action in the right direction, rather than whataboutism...even if it's only marginally effective, it's a mindset change for the following generations. Policies that are easy to understand (like banning personal jets) are more likely to be enacted than complicated carbon capture laws. That's another point being made.

Re: 525 Private jets departed Las Vegas after the Super Bowl ended

#34

Post by maxglute »

tristor wrote: post #4
andy_ppp wrote: post #3

Anyone else think banning private jets would be generally a much better thing for climate? I find it pretty shocking the rich are allowed to pollute the way they do.

All aviation, altogether, private jets inclusive, is less than 3% of world emissions. Getting people fired up about rich people using private jets is just a distraction from the truth in the same way that paper straws are. The reality is that a small handful of industries generate the majority of pollution, and they have no meaningful regulatory pressure to stop, and that even that mostly pales in comparison to the e…

Nigeria, with 210m people, share of global emissions is 0.23%.

Indonesia 270m 1.5%

Pakistan 210m 0.9%

Brazil 210m 1.2%

Bangladesh 160m 0.4%

Thats the 5 most populous countries after india, prc, us.

Re: 525 Private jets departed Las Vegas after the Super Bowl ended

#35

Post by phatfish »

tristor wrote: post #4
andy_ppp wrote: post #3

Anyone else think banning private jets would be generally a much better thing for climate? I find it pretty shocking the rich are allowed to pollute the way they do.

All aviation, altogether, private jets inclusive, is less than 3% of world emissions. Getting people fired up about rich people using private jets is just a distraction from the truth in the same way that paper straws are. The reality is that a small handful of industries generate the majority of pollution, and they have no meaningful regulatory pressure to stop, and that even that mostly pales in comparison to the e…

Why dismiss it as a distraction? Every positive action is a step in the right direction to help keep the planet in a liveable condition.

I'm happy if restricting single use plastic like plastic straws helps even a small amount to reduce plastic pollution.

If i can put up with a soggy straw after 15 mins in a drink, the ultra rich can fly 1st class more often.

Re: 525 Private jets departed Las Vegas after the Super Bowl ended

#36

Post by cinntaile »

bklyn11201 wrote: post #8
andy_ppp wrote: post #3

Anyone else think banning private jets would be generally a much better thing for climate? I find it pretty shocking the rich are allowed to pollute the way they do.

Sure, yes. What's a more realistic way to implement this in the USA while still allowing small-plane hobbyists to fly easily? Could the FAA mandate landing fees based on emissions / passengers?

Why would you exclude them? They're probably the worst offenders per mile when you take the weight into account.

Re: 525 Private jets departed Las Vegas after the Super Bowl ended

#37

Post by fibadi-fabadi »

baggy_trough wrote: post #21
jjk7 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3% is a pretty big reduction for such a simple thing...

You think getting rid of aviation is a simple thing?

Very easy, easier you would thought Just drill few holes on top of the jets, pour hot water as long youll see the water leveling from windows, make it half. Pour also few bucket of yeast and ton of sugar. Shield the holes carefully, let the jet be in sunshine and follow from needed distance what happens.

Re: 525 Private jets departed Las Vegas after the Super Bowl ended

#38

Post by groestl »

baggy_trough wrote: post #27
groestl wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your worst offenders are industry Which produces for?

People.

Not for all of them in the same manner though. The richest 1% have a carbon footprint equal to the "poorest" 66%, for example.

Re: 525 Private jets departed Las Vegas after the Super Bowl ended

#39

Post by vundercind »

groestl wrote: post #11
kayodelycaon wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’d be better off getting cargo ships to stop using sludge for fuel and getting countries to stop burning coal. Private jets aren’t even close to the worse things. They are just easy targets. Your worst offenders are industry.

> Your worst offenders are industry Which produces for?

Irrelevant. You don’t get major changes like this through individual action even when a large majority want it.

You have to regulate industry to achieve such change. Or regulate consumers to indirectly influence industry. “Well people evidently want them to pollute or they’d do something else” is somewhere in not-even-wrong territory—it can only come from not being familiar with the problem space.

Re: 525 Private jets departed Las Vegas after the Super Bowl ended

#40

Post by ericd »

andy_ppp wrote: post #3

Anyone else think banning private jets would be generally a much better thing for climate? I find it pretty shocking the rich are allowed to pollute the way they do.

No, we should just tax the shit out of carbon emissions and then redistribute all proceeds evenly per-capita. Much better than spending limited attention and political energy/capital on piecemeal bans. We need to halt 100% of new carbon entering the carbon cycle, not just the stuff that seems egregious enough to get people riled up about, and we need to align the economic incentives to have a hope of getting there in the timeframe that we need to.

This is a plan that’s supported by a very large number of top economists, I’ve seen it called something like a “Carbon Dividend with Border Carbon Adjustment”: https://clcouncil.org/our-plan/

Post reply on HN