• grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Banning private jets is so far down the long-tail of emissions-lowering strategies that it’s barely even worth considering. Heck, it might even be bad to consider it because doing so might serve to distract from the things we actually need to do.

    The problem isn’t just billionaire-level income correlated with billionaire-level emissions; the problem is American middle-class-level income correlated with American middle-class-level emissions, too! We – typical, normal Americans – are the global rich people the article’s talking about. The “big barrier to stabilizing the climate” isn’t the robber-baron who doesn’t want to give up his private jet; it’s the suburban soccer mom who doesn’t want to trade her minivan crossover SUV for a cargo bike.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s both, and having billionaires cut their incredibly high emissions makes it politically possible to get the rest of the population on board

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yeah, but that assumes you can succeed in forcing the billionaires to cut their incredibly high emissions. I’m not sure we can afford the time spent picking that fight.

    • PaupersSerenade@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Doesn’t want to is not the same as doesn’t have the proper infrastructure to support a no car life style. You’ve been pretty active in the comments saying that it really isn’t the 1% (or the companies owned by said %). Everyone can do better, in every conceivable facet of life, but it doesn’t seem productive to me to belittle a family trying to live the life they’ve been taught to lead.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If your attitude is that explaining that change is necessary is “belittling,” you’re a perfect example of the “big barrier” the article is talking about. In particular…

        doesn’t have the proper infrastructure to support a no car life style

        …what have you, personally, been doing to change that? I, for one, am active in my local community organizations trying to get bike infrastructure built, parking minimums reduced, and single-family zones changed to allow higher density.

        We don’t have the luxury of sitting around being offended when called out on our inaction anymore.

        • PaupersSerenade@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sorry, I just don’t agree that the private jets should stay. I’m glad you’re part of that 10% you’ve been bragging about so hard, and feel free to do what you can as I will. But I’m not, and I need to make enough money to pay rent and eat.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Sorry, I just don’t agree that the private jets should stay.

            I didn’t say they should! What I said is that we’ve got way more important things to worry about, and getting hung up on minutiae like that could be counterproductive.

            I’m glad you’re part of that 10% you’ve been bragging about so hard

            You think that’s bragging?! You’ve missed the point so hard I’m not even sure how to respond to that.

            My income isn’t high and never has been (my household has rarely even hit the US median). My wealth is only relatively high for my age because I’m extremely frugal. And that’s also not a brag – that’s just me giving the context to explain that when I say even I’m part of the problem, I mean damn near EVERY-FUCKING-BODY in America is part of the problem! I don’t care how poor you think you are; on a global scale you’re dead wrong.

            • mriormro@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              The focus should be on industry, fabrication, production, and energy generation. That’s the largest impact you can have.

              Regulating people’s lives, especially people who already feel pressed upon given their contextual poverty/inequality is not how anything is going to happen. In fact, you’ll probably be exactly where we are now: mostly no one giving a shit or doing anything about it.

              • grue@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                The focus should be on ending the suburban American car-centric lifestyle. That’s what’s fucking up the planet, whether you want to admit it or not.

                • mriormro@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You focus on carbon and energy reduction of the sectors I mentioned in my previous comment. You don’t stop this by telling Jane from Oswego to stop buying plastic novelty straws. You stop this by disincentivizing the production of plastic novelty straws as a whole. This is an issue of overproduction as much as it’s an issue of overconsumption.

                  Individual people are not the vector that will subvert this crisis, unfortunately.

                  • grue@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    WTF do plastic straws have to do with anything? I’m talking about doing things like changing the zoning code.