Hacker News Reader

Comment by AndriyKunitsyn | Hacker News Reader

How about we put a ban on UN officials’ private jets first?

Sorry, but this is really cheap criticism that detracts from the main point. Of course, their private jets (if they have them) should be banned, sure. But this is an invisible blip on the radar compared to the climate impact of the meat industry (or air travel in general).

Such messages only cause people to postpone the need to take real action. And we need to take real action now if we even want a chance to dampen the effects of climate change (let alone reverse it).

> But this is an invisible blip on the radar compared to the climate impact of the meat industry

Me eating meat is an even smaller blip, why bother with taking my meat away?

The truth is that you have to lead also by example or you’re not credible.

No one is taking your meat away. The most plausible implementation is to make meat slightly more expensive. People do respond to incentives. People with strong meat preference (like you seem to be) can continue to eat meat, but people with marginal meat preference will switch.

While the aviation industry, and as you point out low capacity flights in particular, is a major perpetrator for high CO2 emissions, the food industry is the number one area where your average consumer can make a big impact.

I agree with you that governing bodies should be putting more pressure on the excesses of the wealthy and on industry, but changing industry practices and consumer behaviour are not mutually exclusive, especially when we should be doing everything we can on all fronts to overcome this crisis.

That's a good idea, but eating less meat is even better, because that can reduce 8Gt CO2/yr. Banning private jets would not reduce 8Gt CO2/yr. It is important to be quantitative here.

Why? The emissions of a few individuals can be far higher than sustainable and it can still give a net-positive effect when their influence on society is great enough.

If their higher emissions aren't at least indirectly necessary for their high influence on society, then while it may be sustainable and net-positive, it isn't necessary justifiable because better options exist.

People with a "high influence on society," however that's measured, can't just do whatever they want because their existence is still net-positive.

The emissions were of course work related in that argument.

Think Mrs. Merkel going to a climate summit vs. someone going to the same place to take a selfie for their followers.

Yes, I know they're work related. I'm raising the point that the emissions may or may not be necessary for their positive influence on society. For instance, I think we'd have a hard time substantiating a claim that people only use private jets when the added productivity (or satisfaction, comfort, etc.) increases their positive influence by an amount proportional to the extra emissions of their private jet flight compared to a normal commercial passenger flight.

Because this isn't the problem.

In fact your defensive reaction is much more representative of the problem: that people find it so hard to accept that in order to avoid their children's lives being significantly worse than the lives we enjoy today, they may have give up a few fking burgers

Makes sense as long as the following assumptions are true:

1. UN officials are traveling by private jet

2. Private jets are worse for the environment than the meat industry

I presume you have evidence of the above that lead to your suggestion?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com