Just 1% of people are responsible for half of all toxic emissions from flying.
- Veraxus ( @Veraxus@kbin.social ) 44•1 year ago
You could also just tax those things at rates the super-rich will actually feel in their bank accounts.
- SHITPOSTING_ACCOUNT ( @SHITPOSTING_ACCOUNT@feddit.de ) English10•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 ( @twopi@lemmy.ca ) English21•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 ( @muix@infosec.pub ) English2•1 year ago
Are trees not sufficient for carbon sequestration?
- Sonori ( @sonori@beehaw.org ) English7•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.
- Vivarevo ( @Vivarevo@sopuli.xyz ) English4•1 year ago
Progressive tax based on income, jet type and frequency.
- myusernameblows ( @myusernameblows@lemm.ee ) English17•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.
- Rivalarrival ( @Rivalarrival@lemmy.today ) English14•1 year ago
You’ve got it exactly backwards. The problem isn’t that the rich buy too much. The problem is that they don’t buy enough. They lend and invest and leverage and otherwise use their money to create debts owed to them.
The cars they buy each pay autoworker wages. The shares they buy in that car company creates an obligation on the company to pay them dividends.
We should be doing everything we can to increase their costs and decrease returns on excessive investments, while removing impediments on them buying services and manufactured products.
- Loui ( @Loui@feddit.de ) English1•1 year ago
So encourage them to fly more?
- Rivalarrival ( @Rivalarrival@lemmy.today ) English3•1 year ago
Economically, yes. Ecologically, no.
- Spzi ( @Spzi@lemm.ee ) English13•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.
- Rapidcreek ( @Rapidcreek@reddthat.com ) English6•1 year ago
It is really nice to fly privately, though I understand why proplr don’t like them.
- Pickle_Jr ( @Pickle_Jr@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) English22•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 ( @Rapidcreek@reddthat.com ) English5•1 year ago
Difference: when 6ou fly a private jet, you can leave anytime you want to.
- Rivalarrival ( @Rivalarrival@lemmy.today ) English3•1 year ago
Rail is excellent for freight transport. There is no cheaper way to move a hell of a lot of heavy or bulky stuff across a continent, especially if what you’re transporting is not particularly time sensitive and can wait for you to acquire full loads before setting off.
Rail is absolutely terrible for passenger transport. All the advantages of freight rail are lost once you switch to passenger service.
The only place passenger rail works is in the densest of urban environments.
The worst possible case is allowing a passenger train - serving a couple hundred people - to take priority over and interfere with a freight train that serves tens of thousands of people.
- Pickle_Jr ( @Pickle_Jr@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) English5•1 year ago
Yeah I have no idea where this idea came from because it simply isn’t true in other countries if you are from the US.
Sure, modern rail starts falling short when you start doing long distances like from New York to Los Angeles.
However, for medium long distances, this is absolutely false.
Distance wise, a trip from Beijing to Shanghai is comparable to Chicago to New York or about 100 miles short compared to Dallas to Chicago.
Sure, a flight does that same distance in 2hrs 18minuties on average.
But compare that to the train cost only being $30 and showing up every 30 minutes as opposed to 4 times that amount for a plane ticket. If you miss that plane as well, then you’re SOL so you better show up to the airport two hours early according to the FAA!
No, I’m not some user from hex bear simping over China either. The sleeper car I was referring to was from Paris to Venice. Was like $70 for two. Departed at night, went to sleep, and woke up in the morning to keep enjoying my vacation. Sure, not as fast as the Chinese train, but this European train is also dated compared to that bullet train, plus there are way more mountains to traverse in this route. And it was absolutely lovely as opposed to playing $500 per ticket for a flight to the same destination.
A proper bullet train setup in the US, especially through the Midwest, not only would make travel cheaper, but you’d make rural towns more attractive to live in if a 2 -> 4 hour drive to the closest big city turns into a 30 minute train trip.
- Nobsi ( @Nobsi@feddit.de ) English6•1 year ago
I stopped flying cross country a year ago. Not looking back. Thanks wife.
- sadreality ( @sadreality@kbin.social ) 5•1 year ago
Funny how fake news don’t ever advocate this position, can’t do that, it would hurt better people. but eating bugs, turning down AC… “we are all in this together plebs”
How about you get your ass in the car and drive to work peasants, it’s good for the climate!
- Queen HawlSera ( @HawlSera@lemm.ee ) English2•1 year ago
I’m not a European citizen, can I still sign this?
Private jet service for rich dog owners condemned by climate campaigners
Environmentalists have condemned a “ludicrous” private jet service that transports wealthy people’s dogs, which this week ran its first flight from Dubai to London.
For £8,166, one way, customers were able to sit with their dogs on their laps and sip champagne as they travelled from Al Maktoum international airport to Farnborough in a Gulfstream IV-SP jet.
The company, K9 Jets, which is run by a husband-and-wife couple from Birmingham, already operates services to New Jersey, Los Angeles, Frankfurt, Paris and Lisbon.