this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2023

550 points (94.8% liked)

Europe

8324 readers

1 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out [email protected]

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

550

Ban private jets and luxury emissions! [Petition] (act.wemove.eu)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

106 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Just 1% of people are responsible for half of all toxic emissions from flying.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 63 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Everyone in these comments so far is misrepresenting the information here and arguing off of an incorrect assumption.

This is NOT saying that the 1% wealthiest people are responsible for half of these emissions. This is saying that 1% of travellers are responsible for half these emissions because those travelers travel so frequently. It has nothing to do with their wealth or using private jets. It's about how much they're flying.

Source: From the study linked in the petition: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378020307779

"1% of world population emits 50% of CO2 from commercial aviation." Not private jets. Commercial aviation.

"Data also supports that a minor share of air travelers is responsible for a large share of warming: The percentile of the most frequent fliers – at most 1% of the world population - likely accounts for more than half of the total emissions from passenger air travel."

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (17 children)

"Everyone in these comments doesn't understand"

You've been arguing against me that commercial flights aren't an issue because I've pointed out the same fucking thing 7h before you!

load more comments (17 replies)

[–] [email protected] 54 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You could also just tax those things at rates the super-rich will actually feel in their bank accounts.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Progressive tax based on income, jet type and frequency.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Or just a rate sufficient to remove and sequester 2x the amount.

Or require them to use 100% sustainable fuel to accelerate the development of such fuels.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Carbon sequestration is not possible right now or even for the foreseeable future.

Forcing jets to use renewable resources is a good one be should aim to ban private short and medium haul flights in general.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Are trees not sufficient for carbon sequestration?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

In order to actually sequester carbon from trees you then need to cut them down and use or burry the lumber in a place where it will rest for the rest of time. Besides we would need vastly more space, water, and firefighting to even approach real offsets. Trees are nice for shade and some ecosystems but they don’t really have anything to do with climate change beyond burning up faster.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Think of the carbon life cycle.

There's hydrocarbons underground that have been there for millions of years. Used to be in the air, but now it's not.

Now it's burned as jet fuel (releasing that cow back into the air)

If trees pull that co2 info their wood, what happens to that wood in 10,000 years? It's going to be in the atmosphere again (bacteria and fungi break down dead wood)

So the only way to do it, using trees, would be to burry them after maturation and make sure they don't rot. And you'd need to do this to capture the gigs tonnes of co2 that is released (that's a lot of trees...and a lot of digging...)

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If it were up to me we'd blanket ban anything that only the ultra rich can afford and force them to put the funds into improving public services. If they want private flights, great, but they also have to offer them at an affordable price to the average person. Basically, "if you didn't bring enough for the whole class, you can't eat it," but for rich people.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You've got it exactly backwards. The problem isn't that the rich buy too much. The problem is that they don't buy enough. They lend and invest and leverage and otherwise use their money to create debts owed to them.

The cars they buy each pay autoworker wages. The shares they buy in that car company creates an obligation on the company to pay them dividends.

We should be doing everything we can to increase their costs and decrease returns on excessive investments, while removing impediments on them buying services and manufactured products.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

If they want private flights, great, but they also have to offer them at an affordable price to the average person.

Individual motorized transport for the masses, but in the skies? This would ultimately doom our ecosphere. Let's instead have less flights, less individual transport and more mass transit.

I think I generally agree to your idea but want to include future generations; sustainability. It's not enough to allow all currently living people a certain lifestyle. What good is it if the result is a scorched Earth a few decades later?

Or maybe you didn't mean it that way. Sorry then, still wanted to make that point.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Skewed analysis is skewed.

From their own source, 4% of the fuel consumption comes from private flights, so the 1% of people are mostly taking commercial flights (70% of gas consumption), the petition should be to ban private and the majority of passenger commercial flights.

Did you know that four passengers in a Suburban pollute less for the same amount of miles traveled than if they were going to their destination by plane? Don't see many people thinking about that when taking the plane to visit the world, not even those who are eco anxious.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Although nothing you’ve said is inaccurate or incorrect, I feel like you’re leaving out a big part of the equation - time. A Suburban can’t travel the same number of miles anywhere near as fast as a plane or jet and that, in most cases, is the number one reason someone chooses a flight over a drive, even if it uses less fuel and is more eco-friendly.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (65 children)

I totally agree with you but there's a question that should be asked when it comes to going on vacation all over the place (and from what I understand it's more common in the USA/English Canada to move very far for school and to take the plane multiple times a year to go see one's family)... It's simply unsustainable but people keep pointing at the rich with their private jet but when looking at the big picture, it's tourists that allow commercial flights companies to continuously increase the number of flights they offer...

load more comments (65 replies)

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

I stopped flying cross country a year ago. Not looking back. Thanks wife.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Funny how fake news don't ever advocate this position, can't do that, it would hurt better people. but eating bugs, turning down AC... "we are all in this together plebs"

How about you get your ass in the car and drive to work peasants, it's good for the climate!

load more comments