Banning private jets is so far down the long-tail of emissions-lowering strategies that it’s barely even worth considering. Heck, it might even be bad to consider it because doing so might serve to distract from the things we actually need to do.
The problem isn’t just billionaire-level income correlated with billionaire-level emissions; the problem is American middle-class-level income correlated with American middle-class-level emissions, too! We – typical, normal Americans – are the global rich people the article’s talking about. The “big barrier to stabilizing the climate” isn’t the robber-baron who doesn’t want to give up his private jet; it’s the suburban soccer mom who doesn’t want to trade her minivan crossover SUV for a cargo bike.
Yeah, but that assumes you can succeed in forcing the billionaires to cut their incredibly high emissions. I’m not sure we can afford the time spent picking that fight.
Doesn’t want to is not the same as doesn’t have the proper infrastructure to support a no car life style. You’ve been pretty active in the comments saying that it really isn’t the 1% (or the companies owned by said %). Everyone can do better, in every conceivable facet of life, but it doesn’t seem productive to me to belittle a family trying to live the life they’ve been taught to lead.
If your attitude is that explaining that change is necessary is “belittling,” you’re a perfect example of the “big barrier” the article is talking about. In particular…
doesn’t have the proper infrastructure to support a no car life style
…what have you, personally, been doing to change that? I, for one, am active in my local community organizations trying to get bike infrastructure built, parking minimums reduced, and single-family zones changed to allow higher density.
We don’t have the luxury of sitting around being offended when called out on our inaction anymore.
Sorry, I just don’t agree that the private jets should stay. I’m glad you’re part of that 10% you’ve been bragging about so hard, and feel free to do what you can as I will. But I’m not, and I need to make enough money to pay rent and eat.
Sorry, I just don’t agree that the private jets should stay.
I didn’t say they should! What I said is that we’ve got way more important things to worry about, and getting hung up on minutiae like that could be counterproductive.
I’m glad you’re part of that 10% you’ve been bragging about so hard
You think that’s bragging?! You’ve missed the point so hard I’m not even sure how to respond to that.
My income isn’t high and never has been (my household has rarely even hit the US median). My wealth is only relatively high for my age because I’m extremely frugal. And that’s also not a brag – that’s just me giving the context to explain that when I say even I’m part of the problem, I mean damn near EVERY-FUCKING-BODY in America is part of the problem! I don’t care how poor you think you are; on a global scale you’re dead wrong.
The focus should be on industry, fabrication, production, and energy generation. That’s the largest impact you can have.
Regulating people’s lives, especially people who already feel pressed upon given their contextual poverty/inequality is not how anything is going to happen. In fact, you’ll probably be exactly where we are now: mostly no one giving a shit or doing anything about it.
You focus on carbon and energy reduction of the sectors I mentioned in my previous comment. You don’t stop this by telling Jane from Oswego to stop buying plastic novelty straws. You stop this by disincentivizing the production of plastic novelty straws as a whole. This is an issue of overproduction as much as it’s an issue of overconsumption.
Individual people are not the vector that will subvert this crisis, unfortunately.
There’s a ton of academic research showing the correlation between income and emissions.
There are also a ton of actions which are necessary to get to zero emissions but not sufficient. Banning private jets is one.
Banning private jets is so far down the long-tail of emissions-lowering strategies that it’s barely even worth considering. Heck, it might even be bad to consider it because doing so might serve to distract from the things we actually need to do.
The problem isn’t just billionaire-level income correlated with billionaire-level emissions; the problem is American middle-class-level income correlated with American middle-class-level emissions, too! We – typical, normal Americans – are the global rich people the article’s talking about. The “big barrier to stabilizing the climate” isn’t the robber-baron who doesn’t want to give up his private jet; it’s the suburban soccer mom who doesn’t want to trade her
minivancrossover SUV for a cargo bike.It’s both, and having billionaires cut their incredibly high emissions makes it politically possible to get the rest of the population on board
Yeah, but that assumes you can succeed in forcing the billionaires to cut their incredibly high emissions. I’m not sure we can afford the time spent picking that fight.
Doesn’t want to is not the same as doesn’t have the proper infrastructure to support a no car life style. You’ve been pretty active in the comments saying that it really isn’t the 1% (or the companies owned by said %). Everyone can do better, in every conceivable facet of life, but it doesn’t seem productive to me to belittle a family trying to live the life they’ve been taught to lead.
If your attitude is that explaining that change is necessary is “belittling,” you’re a perfect example of the “big barrier” the article is talking about. In particular…
…what have you, personally, been doing to change that? I, for one, am active in my local community organizations trying to get bike infrastructure built, parking minimums reduced, and single-family zones changed to allow higher density.
We don’t have the luxury of sitting around being offended when called out on our inaction anymore.
Sorry, I just don’t agree that the private jets should stay. I’m glad you’re part of that 10% you’ve been bragging about so hard, and feel free to do what you can as I will. But I’m not, and I need to make enough money to pay rent and eat.
I didn’t say they should! What I said is that we’ve got way more important things to worry about, and getting hung up on minutiae like that could be counterproductive.
You think that’s bragging?! You’ve missed the point so hard I’m not even sure how to respond to that.
My income isn’t high and never has been (my household has rarely even hit the US median). My wealth is only relatively high for my age because I’m extremely frugal. And that’s also not a brag – that’s just me giving the context to explain that when I say even I’m part of the problem, I mean damn near EVERY-FUCKING-BODY in America is part of the problem! I don’t care how poor you think you are; on a global scale you’re dead wrong.
The focus should be on industry, fabrication, production, and energy generation. That’s the largest impact you can have.
Regulating people’s lives, especially people who already feel pressed upon given their contextual poverty/inequality is not how anything is going to happen. In fact, you’ll probably be exactly where we are now: mostly no one giving a shit or doing anything about it.
The focus should be on ending the suburban American car-centric lifestyle. That’s what’s fucking up the planet, whether you want to admit it or not.
You focus on carbon and energy reduction of the sectors I mentioned in my previous comment. You don’t stop this by telling Jane from Oswego to stop buying plastic novelty straws. You stop this by disincentivizing the production of plastic novelty straws as a whole. This is an issue of overproduction as much as it’s an issue of overconsumption.
Individual people are not the vector that will subvert this crisis, unfortunately.