596
Twelve billionaires’ climate emissions outpollute 2.1m homes, analysis finds
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
596 points (97.9% liked)
News
23376 readers
2132 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think the message that want to be passed by this article is probably pro-oil industry. It gives a false impression that we could tackle ecology not by changing our habits but just be mad at a few billionaires. And this is factually false.
Unlike wealth pollution is more equitably shared among people. Here in order to demultiply the calculated pollution of billionaires they introduced thier industry and the pollution of their employees somehow.
And while it is expected these people pollute more. Getting rid of them will not reduce the pollution as one could expect.
unfortunately everyone, even not the wealthiest will need to change how they live to have a visible impact on pollution. broadly speeking, not just CO2, as we have a lot more ecological problems than global warming. Note the focus on global warming alone is also a strategy to hide the real changes that need to ne made in order to prevent humanity to hurt itself too much by destroying its own ecosystem.
Edit: As I am being downvoted it looks people probably misunderstood my message. I would gladly get rid of super rich people. But while this would help, we would all still need to make efforts. Until we accept that we should change our way of life, we will not solve our balance with our ecosystem.
It's not even that
They specifically say that the numbers wouldn't be this skewed if you didn't count their companies as their own personal emissions.
It's just a stupid article all around.
Cart before the horse. Get rid of the billionaires, then work on individual consumption. Some of us have been recycling and trying to save the environment most of our lives while Taylor Swift flies her private jet to Italy to get a gelato.
Private jets aren't great, but they're objectively a tiny part of emissions. According to the EPA,
If we banned private jets, we'd decrease emissions by somewhere under 2%, assuming we're just banning the larger luxury private jets Taylor Swift is chauffered in, not the recreational 2-4 seat single prop aircraft that pilots own. Taylor Swift's jet was in the news for polluting as much as 1,184.8 average people. That's not equitable, but objectively it's a pretty small part of the problem.
Passenger vehicles are 58% of transportation emissions. If you include freight trucks, they're 83% of transportation emissions. Insisting on eliminating 2% of emissions before we even think about reducing 58% of emissions is the definition of putting the cart before the horse.
The problem with driving isn't with individual people deciding to drive instead of walking 2 hours to get groceries. It's the car-centric Euclidean zoning and sprawling (sub)urban design that makes driving the only practical option. If you can get the average person to drive 4% less by e.g. giving them a neighborhood pub they can bike to in 5 minutes, you've done more to decrease emissions than by grounding every private jet.
I mean, don't get me wrong - we can do both at the same time. But Taylor Swift's emissions are objectively more a matter of equity and optics than substance. You don't fix climate change by hyperfixating on eliminating 2% of emissions.
I’m sorry. My comment wasn’t clear. Billionaires shouldn’t exist.
I think we shouldn’t wait for the billionaires to disappear to make efforts.
Saying as long as billionaires are polluting I can still pollute as usual is simply dismissing our own responsibility.
Even though, I agree, billionaires should be the first to make the largest effort.
Keep the status quo. Got it. Hope that works out for you.
That would have a negligible impact on climate change
Almost everyone has a negligible impact when taken individually, that’s no excuse. Flying is terrible, private jets even more so.
Everyone has a negligible impact as an individual, yes.
But people act as groups, responding to the incentives given to them. There's a reason why the average person in Houston drives a lot more than the average person in Amsterdam. It's because Houston has the widest freeway in the world and is very car-oriented, and Amsterdam has world-class bike infrastructure and is very walkable and transitable. It's not because Amsterdam is filled with virtuous environmentalists while Houston is filled with evil people who hate the planet.
And as groups, people add up. In the US, 58% of transportation emissions are from cars, SUVs and pickups, while only 2% are from non- commercial planes. On the personal level, private jets are terrible. Added up to a societal level, they're a tiny part of the problem, while cars are a giant part of the problem.
There are billions of us, we can look at more than one angle at a time. If we can’t all help on the issue du jour we should just pack it in?
Or let’s talk about how that air travel metric is likely bullshit. We barely do full lifecycle emissions for cars, do you think that metric did that for planes? Their tires? Their mandatory retirement duty cycle for all kinds of components up to their frames? They aren’t expensive as hell for the prestige of it.
All human air traffic combined is 2% of emissions. A private jet is not a big deal.
Calling out private jets from rich people is a conservative tactic to make wealthy people who advocate for climate policy look like hypocrites. It's a nonsensical position that was never intended to be thought through. It's a kneejerk slogan for the boomer hordes.
But it’s actually a problem. It measures whole percentage points, it’s not a rounding error.
Dismissing an issue or person because conservatives are also using it as a punching bag doesn’t remove the problem, it just lets the conservatives control the narrative. I don’t think participating in that polarizing behavior is good or useful.
That's all air travel. All.
100,000 flights and 6 million people every day. A private jet is a drop in the bucket.
Arguing semantics? All flights are equal? A loaded a380 is just like a 6 passenger Lear?
If we argue that someone should take the bus or bike instead of drive, isn’t this the same argument?
No, because the intent is to reduce aggregate demand. One person's life choices are completely irrelevant, but when you spread ideas like ride-sharing, public transport, and walking/biking, the goal is for many people to choose one or more of those options regularly.
Long after we have carbon taxes, planes will still be flying.
Do the math on one person flying alone on a Lear jet while running a lawnmower for fun just to pollute a little extra, vs 6 million other people taking 100,000 flights. Or don't, because the math should be quite obvious.
It’s not one person though, there are more private jets than commercial airliners. This thread started with the declaration that taking needless private flights over the Atlantic is negligible and we shouldn’t bother expressing frustration or ire that they continue.
I never said we should stop flights, just that we can criticize irresponsible usage of it. Why is that such a sticking point here?
Article says otherwise. We need to eliminate all billionaires.
The article literally does not say otherwise. Consider reading it.
Title
Yes, now click the article and read it
Totally did: And you’re annoying.
Notice:
Not
This isn't billionaires directly producing emissions from their private jets or yachts.
This is Bill Gates having a diversified portfolio that includes owning a bunch of BP, accounting the emissions caused by people buying gas from BP and then driving around to BP, and the accounting whatever percentage of BP that the Gates Foundation owns to Bill Gates.
What exactly is your solution to the problem of Bill Gates owning some percentage of BP without making regular people emit any less? After all, getting people to drive less before zeroing out Bill Gates's emissions is apparently "putting the cart before the horse".
Who owns the private jets?
I was foolish to think that inference was a faculty available to readers.
The problem isn't the yachts or private jets, or who owns them.
The problem identified in the article is that Exxon and BP sell a shitload of fossil fuels, and Bill Gates owns over a billion dollars of shares in fossil fuel companies like BP. The private jets are a red herring, regardless of who owns them.
Wrong. Who owns the fossil fuel companies, investments, private jets and yachts?
Billionaires should not exist.
Which is a bigger problem, emissions-wise:
Or
Is that what the article is about? Should we consider methane from cows? Solar cycles? Reel it back in homie.
The article basically amounts to "12 billionaires own a bunch of gas company stock".
My point is that
And
Billionaires are a problem, but they're not really the problem here. If you threw these 12 billionaires into a gulag tomorrow and sold their yachts and private jets as scrap, the emissions identified here would be barely impacted.
Because, again, the article is dressing up the problem of oil companies as being the problem with billionaires.
The problem is, and always will be, until tossed into the dust bin of history- Capitalism.
So, per your quote, nothing about private planes, but rather the same tired rehash that certain lines of business produce more greenhouse gases.
It’s right there:
In the article you told me to read.
This is the relevant (and stupid) part of the article. You can tell, because when they elaborate, they focus on these investments. None of their accounting works otherwise.
Not sure what you're trying to prove but you're just making yourself look silly.
A private jet produces a meaningless amount of CO2 in the grand scheme of things. This is inarguable, because math exists.
Copied from another of my comments
See when I said "read the article" I meant more than the first sentence.
Okay I look silly. /s
That's basically your entire MO on this site, yes.