517
submitted 1 year ago by NightOwl@lemm.ee to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] NocturnalEngineer@lemmy.world 173 points 1 year ago

Majority of private jets carrying 3 passengers or less, releasing 10 times as much carbon per passenger than a commercial flight.

As a peasant, I don't think reducing my carbon footprint will offset the disgusting (increasing) display of greed from the elites.

[-] Alto@kbin.social 97 points 1 year ago

Perhaps the greatest scam the rich ever pulled off was convincing the common people that climate change is somehow our fault instead of theirs. A single billionaire harms the earth an order of magnitude more in a single year than most small towns will in a decade

[-] eyy@lemm.ee 50 points 1 year ago

A single billionaire harms the earth an order of magnitude more in a single year than most small towns will in a decade

But if you and your family stop using plastic straws, turn the heat down in winter, meticulously sort all your recycling and use public transport more for the next decade, you can help Jeff Bezos offset the emissions for his next weekend trip to the Maldives!

[-] infectoid@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Something inside me just died.

[-] Dubious_Fart@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

I'd prefer to reduce climate impact by running over Bezo's head with a tank.

[-] kenbw2@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Well yea. If every person reduced their impact by a tonne, that's 65 tonnes of CO2 saved

How many private jets is that?

[-] Rootiest@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

If every person reduced their impact by a tonne, that's 65 tonnes of CO2 saved

Woah there, not everyone!

We can't expect the wealthy jet owners to participate, we are trying to offset their carbon usage after all, it wouldn't be fair if they had to do it as well..

[-] flux@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago

In other words, if all the billionaires just ceased to exist, it would result in the humanity achieving the emission goals?

[-] 14specks@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

I mean, that's not strictly necessary either. Chinal allows a good many billionaires to exist, but they are hitting their emissions targets ahead of schedule, cause they don't let the billionaires run the entire show like they do in the USA.

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

"How to Cook Forty Humans"

[-] oce@jlai.lu 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's not neither only the rich nor only the poor, it's all of humanity, and that's not the rich saying that, it's the IPCC. Now the rich (countries) of course have more means to lead the change and their guilt is much higher when they don't.

[-] sunbeam60@lemmy.one -4 points 1 year ago
[-] loklan@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

Well for example, I read the other day that 1 in 10 flights taking off from the UK are private jets.

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

That’s very interesting.

Majority of private jets carrying 3 passengers or less, releasing 10 times as much carbon per passenger than a commercial flight.

As a peasant, I don't think reducing my carbon footprint will offset the disgusting (increasing) display of greed from the elites.

[-] sunbeam60@lemmy.one -2 points 1 year ago

That’s funny and made me chuckle but it doesn’t substantiate the claim made.

[-] Hexadecimalkink@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 year ago
[-] Alto@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
[-] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago

Well sort of. The source says it’s from their investments, not from their lifestyle.

Unless people have made an active choice to move their savings into an ESG pot, this will be true for everyone, just scaled according to the size of the pot.

[-] psilocybin@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago

Sort of an important mention, yes, but also sort of skewed.

As the article points out 50%-70% of their emissions are due to their investments, meaning those 125 billionaires still have more direct emissions of the size of up to half the country of france.

And I don't think its fair to equate having some little money in the bank, with employing brokers to ensure the exploitation of human labour and planetary resources enables you and your children to live in luxury without ever having to work

The difference is living off of what you work for and needing a bank account vs living off of your capital (meaning other peoples labour)

[-] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago

But the “little money in the bank” is in aggregate making a huge contribution.

So it’s easy to find the people who we want to blame big. But in aggregate we all have a role to play. That’s a harder message to swallow.

load more comments (32 replies)
this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2023
517 points (98.9% liked)

World News

32317 readers
897 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS