this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2023

517 points (95.3% liked)

Europe

8484 readers

2 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 !yurop@lemm.ee

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

poVoq@slrpnk.net

517

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

submitted 2 years ago by 0x815@feddit.de to c/europe@feddit.de

22 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

top 22 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] dpkonofa@lemmy.world 59 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

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."

[–] Veraxus@kbin.social 50 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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

[–] Vivarevo@sopuli.xyz 5 points 2 years ago

Progressive tax based on income, jet type and frequency.

[–] SHITPOSTING_ACCOUNT@feddit.de 4 points 2 years 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.

[–] twopi@lemmy.ca 23 points 2 years ago (1 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.

[–] muix 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Are trees not sufficient for carbon sequestration?

[–] sonori@beehaw.org 6 points 2 years 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.

[–] n00b001@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years 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...)

[–] myusernameblows@lemm.ee 15 points 2 years 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.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 15 points 2 years ago (1 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.

[–] Loui@feddit.de 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

So encourage them to fly more?

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 points 2 years ago

Economically, yes. Ecologically, no.

[–] Spzi@lemm.ee 14 points 2 years 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.

[–] Nobsi@feddit.de 6 points 2 years ago

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

[–] sadreality@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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!

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

I'm not a European citizen, can I still sign this?

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It is really nice to fly privately, though I understand why proplr don't like them.

[–] Pickle_Jr@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 2 years ago (2 children)

As someone who has taken a private flight provided through work, and rode on a fancy sleeper cabin on a train, trains are 1000x more enjoyable. It's honestly really saddening we've let our rail system get this bad compared to other countries.

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 5 points 2 years ago

Difference: when 6ou fly a private jet, you can leave anytime you want to.

[+] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today -12 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Rail is excellent for freight transport. There is no cheaper way to move a hell of a lot of heavy or bulky stuff across a continent, especially if what you're transporting is not particularly time sensitive and can wait for you to acquire full loads before setting off.

Rail is absolutely terrible for passenger transport. All the advantages of freight rail are lost once you switch to passenger service.

The only place passenger rail works is in the densest of urban environments.

The worst possible case is allowing a passenger train - serving a couple hundred people - to take priority over and interfere with a freight train that serves tens of thousands of people.

[–] Pickle_Jr@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Yeah I have no idea where this idea came from because it simply isn't true in other countries if you are from the US.

Sure, modern rail starts falling short when you start doing long distances like from New York to Los Angeles.

However, for medium long distances, this is absolutely false.

Distance wise, a trip from Beijing to Shanghai is comparable to Chicago to New York or about 100 miles short compared to Dallas to Chicago.

Sure, a flight does that same distance in 2hrs 18minuties on average.

But compare that to the train cost only being $30 and showing up every 30 minutes as opposed to 4 times that amount for a plane ticket. If you miss that plane as well, then you're SOL so you better show up to the airport two hours early according to the FAA!

No, I'm not some user from hex bear simping over China either. The sleeper car I was referring to was from Paris to Venice. Was like $70 for two. Departed at night, went to sleep, and woke up in the morning to keep enjoying my vacation. Sure, not as fast as the Chinese train, but this European train is also dated compared to that bullet train, plus there are way more mountains to traverse in this route. And it was absolutely lovely as opposed to playing $500 per ticket for a flight to the same destination.

A proper bullet train setup in the US, especially through the Midwest, not only would make travel cheaper, but you'd make rural towns more attractive to live in if a 2 -> 4 hour drive to the closest big city turns into a 30 minute train trip.

[–] 0x815@feddit.de -1 points 2 years ago

Private jet service for rich dog owners condemned by climate campaigners

Environmentalists have condemned a “ludicrous” private jet service that transports wealthy people’s dogs, which this week ran its first flight from Dubai to London.

For £8,166, one way, customers were able to sit with their dogs on their laps and sip champagne as they travelled from Al Maktoum international airport to Farnborough in a Gulfstream IV-SP jet.

The company, K9 Jets, which is run by a husband-and-wife couple from Birmingham, already operates services to New Jersey, Los Angeles, Frankfurt, Paris and Lisbon.