[monkeywork]

Or maybe the disconnect is on the other side of the coin, let's say every billionaire on that list did zero flights next year - how much of a reduction in the US CO2 emissions does that actually result in. Does it equate in any meaningful (statistically) way or does it just make people like yourself "feel" better?

[warent]

Well, I'm glad we're finally on the same page that you are in fact specifically defending top-consuming billionaires. Conversation ends here

[monkeywork]

Oh I'm sorry asking you to backup your thoughts with actual data is a problem for you.

Just out of curiosity I took what seems to be the "average" of the reported number of billionaires in America as 800, and the average yearly CO2 from flying via the linked article at a high point of also say 800 tons (which is likely high but easy math). That works out to 640000 tons of CO2 from all the billionaires flying around in a year.

Another quick search on how much CO2 is produced in the USA per year came out as 5.2 billion metric tons.

That means these flights are accounting for 0.0123076923% of the USA's CO2 production ... or put another way it's a rounding error.

[JumpinJack_Cash]

> > That means these flights are accounting for 0.0123076923% of the USA's CO2 production ... or put another way it's a rounding error.

This is not about the percentage of CO2 over the total.

People don't want to be chastised by hypocrites, it's the same as a President who declares that "heavy human losses are a price to pay for victory" and then exempts his 2 sons from serving.

2 soldiers are nothing in the face of a National military mobilization for a war, but nonetheless the public opinion would rightfully be enraged as soon as the reports come out about how the President's sons are draft dodgers.

And in a country that has institutions that work as it should they are grounds for removal.

Similarly emitting 1000 tons or even just 1 ton of CO2 in the environment should be ground for removal from the public discourse about climate change.

[monkeywork]

>should be ground for removal from the public discourse about climate change.

But that's not what the person I was speaking with was arguing for they wanted a cap on CO2 emissions on an individual basis.

As far as being "chastised by hypocrites" how many of the billionares that were mentioned are out there "chastising" people - keeping in mind there is a difference between chastising (ie. Hey, you average citizen you're doing something wrong stop it) and bringing awareness to an issue (ie. Climate change is impacting the planet).

Someone using a massive platform (fame) to spread a message that they may not fully buy into but is for the greater good isn't a terrible thing.

[JumpinJack_Cash]

> > Someone using a massive platform (fame) to spread a message that they may not fully buy into but is for the greater good isn't a terrible thing.

The moment a famous person says “we should” instead of “I should” they are chastising people

[monkeywork]

Define Chastise: rebuke or reprimand severely.

Saying "we should" is not chastising anyone - saying "you're evil for doing" would be chastising.

[Gibbon1]

You're basically arguing that the peons should have to reduce their carbon footprint but not the hyper wealthy.

It's a bit inane considering crimping less than a 1000 peoples lifestyle would save us 1.2% right off the bat.

And seriously other than they are super duper rich why should we care about them at all?

[monkeywork]

might want to go check your math there, you moved that decimal quite significantly