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

111–120 of 151 posts

Re: Celebrity Flights

#111

Post by forty »

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.

I think it could make sense: scientists are probably able to compute a total quantity of CO2 that we can emit worldwide to achieve some climatic goals (like not being f* too badly too quickly). Then divide this total by number of inhabitant of this world and limit yearly individual emissions to that.

Then you don't have to track for everyone, just target those who are ostensibly breaking the limit.

Re: Celebrity Flights

#112

Post by monkeywork »

warent wrote: post #104
monkeywork wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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 in a year.

Another quick search on how much CO2 is produced in the USA per year came out as 5.2 billion metric tons.

That means these flights are accounting for 0.0123076923% of the USA's CO2 production ... or put another way it's a rounding error.

Re: Celebrity Flights

#113

Post by lxgr »

mrshadowgoose wrote: post #98
heartjudytenuta wrote: post #80

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…

I wouldn't call it hate (or at least not all of it) – I would call it an understandable desire for some measure of fairness.

I'd even say this has little to do with carbon emissions, and much to do with the price of economy tickets for many routes having doubled over the past months, and it'll likely only go up from here in the foreseeable future as we (hopefully) shift to synthetic aviation fuels. Taking a private flight for a very driveable distance, or a connection that has excellent and frequent first-class services available, just isn't the best look right now between sustained high inflation and the common narrative of individualizing the responsibility for carbon emissions.

But yes, I agree that symbolic regulations and prohibitions without a viable alternative won't get us anywhere. Only setting effective regulatory incentives that properly account for the externalities of all forms of energy use will.

Re: Celebrity Flights

#114

Post by Gibbon1 »

monkeywork wrote: post #112
warent wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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…

You're basically arguing that the peons should have to reduce their carbon footprint but not the hyper wealthy.

It's a bit inane considering crimping less than a 1000 peoples lifestyle would save us 1.2% right off the bat.

And seriously other than they are super duper rich why should we care about them at all?

Re: Celebrity Flights

#117

Post by somsak2 »

lisper wrote: post #93
ivraatiems wrote: post #68

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.

It’s a Vans RV10. Easily capable of going cross country. It has a range of 1000 miles.

You think Taylor Swift is consistently flying in one of these things? https://www.vansaircraft.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/rv10...

Re: Celebrity Flights

#118

Post by warent »

qeternity wrote: post #108
warent wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In the same way that vaporizing vicious dictators--subtracting how many people they personally killed by their own hands--would have no detectable difference to global murder rate.

This specific idea of limiting CO2 is being taken a bit too out of context of the broader point. Sanctions against Russia hasn't stopped the murder, any more than limiting individual CO2 consumption would stop climate change. Yet both are correct actions because they are steps in the direction of fixing larger issues.

EDIT: clarify wording

Re: Celebrity Flights

#119

Post by _atreeonmyhouse »

shadowgovt wrote: post #36
cj wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at her flight log, my guess is the jet she owns is run by a company that rents it out to other people. If that’s not the case, I have no idea why anyone would fly from Atlanta to Savannah and then depart again 2 hours later. Must be rented out to others

There's a concept called the "$100-dollar hamburger" in aviation, which is where one takes an otherwise-unnecessary trip for aviation reasons (i.e. maintaining minimum flight time for qualifications, shaking down a plane after maintenance, etc.). Atlanta -> Savannah -> Atlanta with a 2-hour turnaround could be hundred-dollar hamburger. It might also be two different people using the jet. But... TBH, it might also be…

Elvis once famously flew cross-country to Denver for an 8,000 calorie peanut butter sandwich.

Re: Celebrity Flights

#120

Post by monkeywork »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #114
monkeywork wrote: post #112

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…

You're basically arguing that the peons should have to reduce their carbon footprint but not the hyper wealthy. It's a bit inane considering crimping less than a 1000 peoples lifestyle would save us 1.2% right off the bat. And seriously other than they are super duper rich why should we care about them at all?

might want to go check your math there, you moved that decimal quite significantly
Post reply on HN