Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by freddybobs 1691 days ago
> "gulf stream environmentalists flying to conferences in private jets is hypocritical"

Perhaps it is. Or perhaps it's necessary to get things done. Who knows?

It's a kind of an odd argument though. That "discerning Americans" will jump on board when they see some other people doing "some things" such that it indicates to them that it must be real.

Why work through that indirection? It's so arbitrary and can be arbitrarily moved. It's a blame shifting mechanism - I won't worry about this until "gulf stream environmentalists", "china", somewhere/someone else does something that I think is enough. I won't say what that is or what I'll actually do and by when. Or if I do and I make it to that point I can always find some other "issue".

Perhaps that's the point. I mean delay and distract was the big tobacco plan - and many of the same people apparently moved to fossil fuel companies.

A more serious and beneficial approach would be to look at what climate science predicted and what happened. Then look at what their future predictions are like.

If you take the IPCC reports they have generally underpredicted the rate of climate change.

1 comments

> Or perhaps it's necessary to get things done.

Since when did commercial flight or rail stop being a way to transport people? Oh, right, it's not an option for the elite class because... reasons. They could do all of this without having several dozen private jets flying to the same places.

> It's a blame shifting mechanism

It's NOT a blame shifting mechanism, or at least that's not how I'm using it. What I'm saying is that your privileges are being revoked for transportation, theirs are not. You are being shamed for taking a commercial flight, but they are not, even when using private jets.

Finally, consider the rhetoric they are pushing. They are saying that this is an "emergency," meanwhile they are observably NOT acting like it's an emergency. This is a classic case of "they've got theirs," and it's clear that they don't plan on making any sacrifices that result in a lower standard of living for themselves.

> Since when did commercial flight or rail stop being a way to transport people?

I'm not sure why you are lumping those two modes of transport together. According to one estimate, "a passenger traveling in a private aircraft emits ... between 75 and 250 times the CO2 of a comparable high-speed rail journey."[0]

You're right, though, that private jets are an easy target for a carbon tax, and I don't know of any climate activists arguing that private jets should be exempt from one.

Perhaps the reason it is not high on people's lists of things to fix, though, is that "the aviation industry only contributes around 2% of global CO2 emissions, with private air travel representing an even smaller fraction." (according to the European Business Aviation Association).[0]

[0] https://www.dw.com/en/should-private-jets-be-banned-to-spare...

> I'm not sure why you are lumping those two modes of transport together.

I think you misunderstand - "commercial flight" is referring to flying on one of the large carriers instead of privately. Both of those modes of transportation move large groups of people, together. Many people, one trip. Rail is available in Europe, but not in the US.

> Perhaps the reason it is not high on people's lists of things to fix, though, is that "the aviation industry only contributes around 2% of global CO2 emissions, with private air travel representing an even smaller fraction."

They are saying this is an "emergency" though. Is it a good idea to fly any plane during a climate emergency that will purportedly starve all of us? Why aren't these people concerned about starving themselves? This is an emergency and they aren't taking their own precautions seriously.

> I don't know of any climate activists arguing that private jets should be exempt from one.

While not activists, the EU, for one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27775620