821
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2024
821 points (92.9% liked)
Technology
55693 readers
2846 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Ugh, I feel the same. I know the top 1% of the world or whatever emits tons and tons more CO2 per year than the other 99%, but I didn't know it was this bad. That plane is flying multiple times per day. Sure Musk is probably not in it all the time, but that doesn't matter.
Private jets should be banned all together, let's see how quickly they suddenly find out the internet exists.
Things like this are perfect reminders that we don't have to change every person on the planet, just eliminate the erronneous emissions.
Eliminate the erroneous emissions. Interesting take on the ol' "eat the rich." I like it!
All air travel should have fuel and emissions tax. Normalize them to commercial airliners. That'll incentivize larger, more efficient plane designs. It'll also punish private jets. Also charge a fee for any planes not at least X% full. Also give discounts and waive fees for planes over X size that service under-served airports.
A bunch of regulations like this should make private planes prohibitively expensive, like 10-20x their current cost. But that's a lot of legislation that huge corporations and billionaires would oppose.
Planes are already pretty fuel efficient per passenger. And larger planes are unlikely, because this would mean all runways they want to use must be extended so the can start and land there.
Commercial planes with high occupancy got somewhat efficient (until you compare to other modes of transportation), but private jets with 1 ego on board are incredibly fuel inefficient.
It’s a very big ego though, so of course it needs a lot of fuel.
how much fuel would it take to burn the ego to the ground?
Carbon emissions per km:-
Domestic flight: 240 g
Eurostar (train): 4 g
Source: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-footprint-travel-mode
That's domestic flights in the UK which are stupidly short. Short and long haul flights are at 150g which is already less than ICE cars at ~170 and not far above the average bus at 100g. Though obviously no where near electrified rail.
Eh.... They're similar to cars for a similar distance. But, that still means gobs of CO2 emitted if you're traveling from NY to LA, which would be a massive trip in a car.
And if only manufactures would make use of hydrogen turbojets.
People with private jets often charter them out when they’re not using them. The best place for an airplane is in the air. Only bad things happen when you let it sit around on the ground all the time. It’s not much different than commercial planes that spend most of their time in the air.
Sure, a private jet will have more emissions than an Airbus, but it’s a marginal increase. It’s not like rich people with their planes are producing a million times more pollution that wouldn’t exist if they didn’t have a private jet. They’re still going to fly, at least for longer trips.
It’s easy to go down a rabbit hole with this line of reasoning. Who else is using less efficient aircraft or taking unnecessary flights? Are all those police helicopter flights necessary? What about people flying to go party on an island somewhere versus some more noble purpose? Or airlines with a half empty flight? Meanwhile, it’s the oil companies producing the vast majority of carbon emissions while we squabble over travel itineraries and choice of aircraft.
If elon didn't have a private jet and had to travel in a regular passenger plane, it would aboulutely make a difference I'm carbon emissions. Right now, we are seeing emissions from passenger planes AND private jets. Take away private jets and the passenger planes will still create the same emissions regardless. Your argument is that the addition of private jets are a "marginal increase" of emissions.
That makes no sense. Less planes = less emissions. Private jets + planes = more emissions. Just like, if most people took public transportation on the road. Busses + cars = more emissions than if there were no cars and only public transportation left. There would be less emissions if the wealthy traveled in a regular passenger plane like everyone else.
It's easy to go down a rabbit hole with that kind of reasoning.
The point is that one plane can transport a large amount of passengers in one trip, compared to, transporting the same amount of passengers in a private jet would take multiple trips. Transport more people with less fuel use. This is why public transportation is so important. It actually does make a difference. Elon just likes his toys and doesn't give a shit about the effect it has on the environment. That's why he's so focused on Mars.
This planet is doomed because of people like him, and he knows it. Otherwise, he would be investing his money into making the earth a better place instead of investing in trying to leave it.