[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.

[JumpinJack_Cash]

Standards evolve, for sure people are not feeling positive sentiments when seeing Taylor Swift or Leonardo Di Caprio appear on TV and talking about climate change.

Same thing for the PR of mr. Gates and the constant noise put into every media by mr. Musk.

So yes whatever you want to call it the point stands. Normal people don't like it and the approval rating goes down everywhere for the public person who does it, except among the fake circles of the Oscars and the Met Gala where swarms of aspiring celebrities don't miss a chance to give a good blowie and fluffing to what is perceived to be the celebrity of the moment who appeared the most all over media to virtue signal

[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