319
submitted 11 months ago by zencat@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] SomeoneElse@lemmy.world 54 points 11 months ago

So would cracking down on the unnecessary private flights billionaires take.

[-] Lileath@lemmy.blahaj.zone 31 points 11 months ago

The impact of eating meat is way bigger than the few private flights you are talking about, though those obviously shouldnt exist as well.

[-] SomeoneElse@lemmy.world 43 points 11 months ago

It’s true that for an average Brit, eating beef 3x a week is worse for the environment in a year than their annual holiday to Greece.

But billionaires aren’t just taking “a few private flights” they’re taking flights more often than I eat meat in the first place.

I’ve cut down on meat and my water and electricity usage, I haven’t been on a plane in 10 years. I use the car about once a month. I recycle, reuse, repurpose, I very very rarely buy new things. I’m chronically ill and living in fuel poverty. I’m anaemic ffs. How much more are the poor expected to do when then rich do nothing?

[-] Bolt@lemmy.world 24 points 11 months ago

There are many problems in the world. Some people like to focus on the ones with the largest impacts, where you can personally do something about it (like veganism). Others like to focus on those where few cause grossly disproportionate harm, as they seem more addressable (like private jets).

Debating the merits of focusing on one problem over another is interesting, but in my mind the time for it is not when media is being shared that bolsters a cause without coming at the expense of any others. It hurts all movements when people always undermine issues, pointing to another more important from their perspective.

I highly doubt that most people think you aren't doing enough for the environment. And I don't understand why you'd assume that as the implication of this article.

[-] SomeoneElse@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

That was a really well written response and I enjoyed your insight. As for why I took personally - I was just having a bad day/week/month. Life is really fucking hard right now.

[-] lobut@lemmy.ca 5 points 11 months ago

Hope it gets better for you mate. Virtual hug from a stranger.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Good summary. For me it is disproportionate harm. I am not going to yell at some regular person for liking fried chicken when their employer is flying on a private jet.

[-] glassware@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

So if billionaires put out a statement that they will never stop private flights, and governments announce that they won't legislate on it, what's your plan? Destroy the planet out of spite?

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

Well first off I would suggest that they go in a submarine. Preference for one that doesn't have all those pesky regulations in the design.

After that just put a 20,000% fuel tax on private jets. I fly commercial, and my job matters a whole lot more, so can they. If Musk or Zuck doesn't show up to work tomorrow things would run slightly better.

We don't need them. They need us. They are not super geniuses they are lucky.

[-] Kerfuffle@sh.itjust.works 7 points 11 months ago

You missed the other person's point. It's not a game and the consequences of ignoring the problem are likely to be massive.

Also, you know who will be the absolute last to feel pain from stuff like climate change? The wealthy. The overwhelming majority of people that will be affected aren't privileged and in fact the least privileged are going to suffer the brunt of it.

You're not going to punish the rich and powerful and make them regret their choices with this approach. By the time they're even feeling moderate discomfort, you'll be long gone.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Right so the rest of us should suffer when there is a low hanging fruit we can pick.

This isn't about punishing people. You want CO2 to go down? Go for the easy wins before you go after the harder to achieve ones. A ban on private jets would hurt effectively none of the human race. There are over 8 billion of us. It wouldn't even impact a percent of a percent. But yeah if given the option of taking someone in developing world's motorcycle away or make Bezos have to fly first class I know which I am picking.

[-] kokiriflute@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Interesting how so many people here want to ignore the rich people who got rich off destroying the environment and instead want normal people to pay the price for their greed and destruction.

[-] pizza_rolls@kbin.social 16 points 11 months ago

Perfect is the enemy of good. Trust me, I am very irritated by the complete lack of giving a fuck shown by billionaires and large companies.

But I also know that when it comes down to it the only thing they actually care about is money. And I am one of the people that provides them with that money by choosing to buy their products. Sure, it will take a significant amount of us to make a noticable impact but vegan alternatives have been becoming much more popular and prevalent because there is increasing demand. It's happening. The dairy industry obviously feels threatened with their stupid wood milk campaign and desperate attempts to ban anyone else from using the word milk.

That is something I actually have control over. I can vote accordingly to try to stop rich assholes from destroying the earth, but I don't control it alone. At least when the earth dies I can say I tried.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Perfect being the enemy of good is the exact problem here. There is a much bigger reduction in emissions by reducing meat intake, compared to already eating low amounts and going vegan.

It's easier to convince people to eat less meat. That should be the focus

[-] glassware@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

In a mastodon thread this week we estimated that banning private jet usage globally would save about 100 million tonnes of CO2, while normal Americans would save 4.5 billion tonnes by reducing their consumption to global average levels.

Disproportionate harms are annoying but a tiny minority acting disproportionately still matters way less than how normal people act. Banning private jets is pointless if nothing else changes.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Because something doesn't fix a problem completely nothing can be done, yes?

Also I wonder how many times I have been stuck on the tarmac because of some private jet using my taxpayer funded airport.

load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
319 points (88.1% liked)

World News

37314 readers
1791 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS