Ban private jets and luxury emissions! [Petition] : europe

[-] dpkonofa@lemmy.world 61 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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."

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago

"Everyone in these comments doesn't understand"

You've been arguing against me that commercial flights aren't an issue because I've pointed out the same fucking thing 7h before you!

[-] dpkonofa@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I never said that. I said that they’re not as big of an issue as cars. You’re lying. If you’re going to focus your efforts, as I’ve stated now multiple times, it would be more impactful to tell people to drive less, not more. Airline travel is more efficient than driving.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

When used for passengers and for the same purpose, no they're not. They only are if they're used for the same distance and the car has one passenger and the plane is full, but I'm sure even you realise how disingenuous that comparison is.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] Veraxus@kbin.social 54 points 1 year ago

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

[-] SHITPOSTING_ACCOUNT@feddit.de 11 points 1 year ago

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 22 points 1 year ago

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@infosec.pub 2 points 1 year ago

Are trees not sufficient for carbon sequestration?

[-] sonori@beehaw.org 6 points 1 year 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.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] Vivarevo@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 year ago

Progressive tax based on income, jet type and frequency.

[-] myusernameblows@lemm.ee 24 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Spzi@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year 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.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Skewed analysis is skewed.

From their own source, 4% of the fuel consumption comes from private flights, so the 1% of people are mostly taking commercial flights (70% of gas consumption), the petition should be to ban private and the majority of passenger commercial flights.

Did you know that four passengers in a Suburban pollute less for the same amount of miles traveled than if they were going to their destination by plane? Don't see many people thinking about that when taking the plane to visit the world, not even those who are eco anxious.

[-] dpkonofa@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Although nothing you’ve said is inaccurate or incorrect, I feel like you’re leaving out a big part of the equation - time. A Suburban can’t travel the same number of miles anywhere near as fast as a plane or jet and that, in most cases, is the number one reason someone chooses a flight over a drive, even if it uses less fuel and is more eco-friendly.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago

I totally agree with you but there's a question that should be asked when it comes to going on vacation all over the place (and from what I understand it's more common in the USA/English Canada to move very far for school and to take the plane multiple times a year to go see one's family)... It's simply unsustainable but people keep pointing at the rich with their private jet but when looking at the big picture, it's tourists that allow commercial flights companies to continuously increase the number of flights they offer...

[-] dpkonofa@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It’s really not, though. Commercial aviation and transport (including private jets, commercial flights, and shipping/import) combined make up only 5.3% of the total CO2 in use. While commercial flights make up 70% of that slice, they also have an exponential effect vs. the alternative. Even if there are more flights, unless they are less than half-full, using commercial airlines is more sustainable and also safer than the other alternatives because the effect is multiplicative.

Imagine everyone was taking private jets. If you forced everyone to fly in pairs, you would literally halve the amount of CO2. Force them to fly in 4’s, and it’s a further halving of that first half (equal to 1/4 the amount of CO2 now). Extend that further and further until you have a flight with 647 passengers (the “average” amount for commercial flight globally) and look how much CO2 you’ve prevented from entering the atmosphere. Even if someone is touring 6 or more times per year, as long as they’re flying a commercial flight, it’s better for CO2 production than a car or individual transport.

It’s far more effective to direct efforts to something outside of that 5% (or especially a subsection of that 5%) like manufacturing or industrial CO2 pollution.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago

You don't understand what I'm saying.

People shouldn't be flying so dang much, it's that simple. It's not normal to expect to take one week off work and to be able to spend it guilt free on the other side of the world. I'm talking about eliminating commercial flights not to replace them with private jets, but to replace them with local vacations and with the expectation that if you decide to move across the continent you won't be seeing your family four times a year but once every four years.

Our incredible mobility is an unsustainable anomaly in human's history.

[-] dpkonofa@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Why?

You can’t just make a claim like “people shouldn’t fly as much” without a reason why or claims like “mobility is an unsustainable” without any kind of evidence. Our mobility is 100% sustainable. Not only that, it’s sustainable in its current form.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What? What you're saying doesn't make sense, your previous message you were saying so yourself, 5.3% of all CO2 emissions, 70% of that coming from commercial passenger flights!

It's. Not. Sustainable.

[-] dpkonofa@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think you’re not understanding the numbers. 70% of 5.3% of total emissions is 3.7% of total global emissions. In other words, if you eliminated all commercial flights, you’d only remove 3.7% of the total emissions being produced in the world. There are more impactful changes that can be made that do not have the impact of “no one can ever fly anywhere and you won’t see your family for years”.

It is sustainable.

🙄

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago

No, it's not. With your attitude we can justify not intervening to reduce emissions in any sector because all of them taken individually don't represent that much emissions.

[-] dpkonofa@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Fossil fuel use in non-aviation transportation makes up almost 26% of the CO2 emissions globally. Don't be ridiculous. I have said multiple times that there are much more impactful ways to make a big dent in CO2 emissions that don't require people to live isolated from their families. You're being dishonest.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

And planes aren't as efficient as cars for the same mileage traveled and people use then to travel longer distances than they would if they went on vacation by car. Even better if trains as an alternative.

As far as emissions are concerned, planes are the worst to transport both people and goods and should be limited to what is absolutely necessary.

[-] dpkonofa@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

planes aren't as efficient as cars for the same mileage traveled

Again, that's not true unless you're talking about short distances for which plane travel is not even practical. A plane can carry up to 800 passengers to a destination. It would take 200 cars minimum to move the same number of people and their output would be nearly triple that of a plane. Cars use the same amount of fuel to move, start, and stop. Planes use most of their fuel use on takeoff and landing since they're essentially gliders once in the air.

planes are the worst to transport both people and goods

Citation needed. You can't just make claims like that without any kind of evidence considering that the statement is flat out not true.

https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector

Automotive transport makes up 12% of emissions - 4x that of airline travel.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

Airplanes have a consumption equivalent of 3.5L/100km/passenger. A car with two passengers is equal to that, more passengers and cars win. Take more than CO2 into consideration? Looks even worse for planes as they don't have an equivalent to a catalytic converter. Is 8.5T kilometers enough data?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft

How about if we take contrails into consideration?

https://www.science.org/content/article/aviation-s-dirty-secret-airplane-contrails-are-surprisingly-potent-cause-global-warming

A 2011 study suggests that the net effect of these contrail clouds contributes more to atmospheric warming than all the carbon dioxide (CO2) produced by planes since the dawn of aviation.

Man, that sure doesn't look good for airplanes does it? Imagine if we started talking about leaded fuel still used for piston engines (but let's not go there...)

https://tedb.ornl.gov/data/

The same amount of cargo can be transported much more efficiently by rail or by boat.

But hey, you're just proving my original point right, "regular people" who travel by plane don't want to be told that they too are part of the issue and that they should feel bad about their choice. Guess it's too hard for you guys to imagine living like the majority of the world's population that will never take a plane in their lifetime and that won't be visiting anything past a few hundred kilometers away from where they live... Oh the agony! Right?

It's funny cuz you don't even realize that traveling by plane means you're already part of an elite when looking at it on a global scale.

[-] dpkonofa@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

A car with two passengers is equal to that, more passengers and cars win.

Lies. Your own link shows that a plane's consumption equivalent per passenger is 67mpg. Show me any car on the market, much less a majority of cars, that have a fuel efficiency of 67mpg. A hybrid Prius has a fuel efficiency of 52mpg. On top of that, the average drive in an automobile, light-duty truck, and semi-truck is 1.1 passengers with an average of 4 rides per day. There's no way you can slice these numbers that shows that a car is more fuel efficient than a plane even with the most fuel-efficient vehicle much less the total number of cars out there that include much less fuel-efficient vehicles.

Man, that sure doesn't look good for airplanes does it?

The 5% number already includes contrails in it. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-aviation

The same amount of cargo can be transported much more efficiently by rail or by boat.

You can't just drop a claim like that and a link to multiple datasets without identifying what the evidence is. It's not my job to do your research for you just because you dump some unspecified data on me. Which data set shows what you're saying?

But hey, you're just proving... blah blah blah

I never said any of that and it's not my responsibility to ignore seeing my family so that another person feels better about also not seeing their family. If anything, you're just proving the need to further make these technologies better to lower those numbers. It still doesn't change the fact that there are much larger impact items than airplanes and there are less intrusive ones too.

I'm not denying that I've had the privilege to travel by plane. That doesn't mean that I do it often or that I can afford anything other than coach and it also doesn't invalidate my point in any way. I'm only arguing about the initial claim that was made. Whether I've been on a plane is beside the point.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Since you don't seem to understand how fuel economy works and you don't seem to understand that I'm comparing travels for the same purpose I guess I'll have to make it extremely simple for you.

The average number of passengers/vehicle during the average drive doesn't matter since it counts people going to work out to get grocery and what we're talking about right now is people going on vacation so they're more likely to go as a group and ride sharing also is a thing. People don't stop going on their average drive because they went on vacation to Japan the week before.

Airplanes have a fuel economy of 67mpg/passenger. The number for a Prius you gave me is 52mpg/vehicle. They're not the same kind of data, the Prius' number needs to be converted to /passenger.

One passenger? Same as your number since there's one vehicle and one passenger. If there are two passengers in the Prius the fuel used is divided by each passenger, they each use half of that fuel, that's 52mpg/0.5 = 104mpg/passenger because the car's fuel economy doesn't change with the extra passenger.

(And just for the lulz, a Boeing 777 gets 82mpg/passenger and has a capacity of 388 passengers, let's say the plane only had one passenger, that's 82 / 388 = 0.21 mpg!)

That's why the Suburban example was used, it gets 17mpg mixed (I'm even helping you here instead of just using highway mpg), with four passengers that's... oh my... 68mpg! It beats planes! Know what's the passenger capacity of a Suburban is? Up to 8. Need me to do the math on that or I've proven my point? Heck, someone else already explained all of that to you so I don't know why I need to repeat it.

Since I'm arguing against people going on vacations by plane so dang much it makes planes look even worse because people use them to travel thousands of miles instead of hundreds of miles if they were to go on vacation by car. 67mpg over 1000 miles = 14.9 gallons of fuel or the equivalent of traveling 250 miles per passenger in the Suburban or 770 miles per passenger in the Prius. How far do you go on vacation in a car? How far do you go on vacation in a plane?

Regional flights (i.e. in smaller less efficient planes) are 500 miles on average in the USA

https://www.statista.com/statistics/742763/regional-carriers-average-passenger-trip-length/

International (i.e. in bigger more efficient planes)... well it sure doesn't look good!

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-international-aviation-km?tab=chart

In the USA it's over 1000 miles (1980km), Europeans and Canadians are even worse... Do you really need me to prove that it's more efficient for a French couple to drive from Paris to Rome (1400km) instead of going on the average French international flight (2700km) for their vacation? Our even more realistically, from Paris to Milan (850km) this way both travels take a day? I used the French example because their distance traveled is at the lower end of the West European average so I'm being nice here.

So, is my point clearer now?

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] vivadanang@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

Our mobility is 100% sustainable. Not only that, it’s sustainable in its current form.

Oh the ice sheets on your planet are fine huh?

JFC

[-] dpkonofa@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Oh is the current state of the ice sheets because of the 3% of CO2 from airlines? Or maybe there are bigger contributors to what's going on there that we can tackle first?

Idiot.

[-] vivadanang@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

I can't decide which is more depressing, you fighting for people to have the right to keep polluting by flying around their own jets, or the fact that you'll never even benefit from your campaign to defend the rich assholes fucking up our environment for their own convinience.

either way you're a sad, dumb sack of trash.

[-] dpkonofa@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I can’t help it if you’re wrong. I’m not defending rich people, I’m just stating a fact. Planes are more fuel efficient than cars and there are more cars with less fuel efficiency. If you want to help the problem, planes are farther down the list of impacts than cars.

http://websites.umich.edu/~umtriswt/PDF/UMTRI-2014-2_Abstract_English.pdf

“A new report from the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute shows that flying has become 74% more efficient per passenger since 1970 while driving gained only 17% efficiency per passenger. In fact, the average plane trip has been more fuel efficient than the average car trip since as far back as 2000, according to their calculations.”

The report is called “Making Driving less Energy Intensive than Flying”.

What’s depressing is that you’re so confidently incorrect yet continue to argue.

[-] Don_alForno@feddit.de 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Commercial aviation and transport (including private jets, commercial flights, and shipping/import) combined make up only 5.3% of the total CO2 in use.

That's between the total CO2 emissions of Russia and India, ranked 3rd and 4th worldwide (only China and the USA have higher emissions, and those two lead by huge margins). By that logic, all countries in the world besides China and the USA could stop reducing emissions because they only cause sub 10% shares of the total.

You just can't argue that way. 5% are a big, signifikant amount. There isn't a whole lot "outside that 5%". Ultimately, all of it has to become 0 anyway.

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] taladar@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago

Commercial aviation and transport (including private jets, commercial flights, and shipping/import) combined make up only 5.3% of the total CO2 in use.

That may very well be but there are parts of that that are significantly more useful than others. Travelling from A to B only to travel back a few days later is probably among the most inefficient of those. That covers things like family visits, tourism, business meetings and many other human round-trips. There are probably a few exceptions, such as specialist workers coming to the device they repair if that device is even harder to move but overall most travel for short periods of time is very wasteful.

[-] dpkonofa@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

That’s not accurate, though. The number one usage of cars globally is commuting to and from work and that averages 1.2 passengers per vehicle. If you look at total car and light-duty usage across any kind of trip, it’s 1.3 passengers per vehicle. Usefulness has nothing to do with it and tourism contributes far more than it takes. All forms of travel are wasteful. Aviation is just less wasteful than other means of travel no matter how you slice it.

[-] vivadanang@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

5.3%

that's 5.3% of the carbon emissions that don't actually contribute to the economy in a useful way. We will have to continue burning carbon to transport food and goods; transporting rich assholes to davos? fuck'em. if they want to go that bad get on commercial (GODS FORBID FIRST CLASS) or hop on the fucking yachts they all love.

[-] dpkonofa@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

5.3% is commercial airlines. 5.3% includes all air travel including commercial and commercial makes up 70% of that 5%. If you're going to argue against something, get it straight what you're actually arguing about.

Also, you're insane if you think that commercial aviation and transport don't contribute to the economy. How do you think your cell phone that you're using to type this nonsense got to you?

[-] Tvkan@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago

How do you think your cell phone that you're using to type this nonsense got to you?

Very probably on a boat.

[-] dpkonofa@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Do you live in China? If not, it may have gotten to you by a combination of means definitely involving an airplane. Even if it didn't make it to you directly, it likely travelled to several different places before it even got in your hands and the likelihood of an airplane being part of that is extremely high.

[-] vivadanang@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

good for it, it's part of commerce. flying rich assholes around the world not so much. fuck off.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] vivadanang@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

transporting rich assholes to davos? fuck’em. if they want to go that bad get on commercial (GODS FORBID FIRST CLASS) or hop on the fucking yachts they all love.

since you obviously didn't read it the first time.

[-] dpkonofa@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

What are you talking about? The article isn’t talking about the 1% richest. It’s talking about the top 1% of commercial travelers.

[-] Nobsi@feddit.de 8 points 1 year ago

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

[-] sadreality@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

[removed by mod]

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 5 points 1 year ago

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

[-] Pickle_Jr@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 1 year ago

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 6 points 1 year ago

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

[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

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

Europe

Rules