Hacker News Reader

Comment by ajsnigrutin | Hacker News Reader

The problem here is, that the giant corporations can pollute the environment (eg. coca cola in a plastic bottle, with a plastic cap, with a plastic label, wrapped in a plastic 6-pack, with a plastic handle, on a plastic pallet wrapped in plastic foil), and rich environmentalists then fly their private jets to some 'green' conference and tell an 'average joe' that he shouldn't drive his car and eat meat, and should pay for plastic bags.

View on HN

The trope of the rich environmentalist flying their private jet, is just that. I’m sure that some exist, but the vast majority take far more care of the environment than that.

https://www.businessinsider.in/sustainability/news/cop27-att...

I'm not sure about that.

I mean.. even if you look at the cars they're driving (again, those are rich people, they can easily afford anything electric):

https://www.schwarzeneggerclimateinitiative.com/

And then he drivers an SUV even larger than him:

https://www.tmz.com/2022/01/21/arnold-schwarzenegger-car-acc...

Ursula:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2021/11/02/revealed-a...

etc.

While I think it’s a positive thing for people in positions of power to speak up for the environment, I do not personally consider any of these people environmentalists. I think there is a huge difference between supporting a cause and living it.

Nevertheless, after rereading your original comment, I fully agree with you. These world leaders should be leading. It is disgusting and hypocritical that they flew 400 private jets to the COP conference.

It's not as though everyone going to the COP conference wants to lead on the environment, many of them are going for things like... preventing the recommendation of a plant based diet.

"Vast majority" is not even an applicable term here. It is specifically about green gurus with jets (which is not a myth, but observable political phenomenon), and if you're not rich enough, not politically influential, and don't fly own jet - its not about you, or anyone you know.

I don’t think it’s about green gurus. It’s about politicians. They know how big the problems are, but like most people, they don’t want to change their behaviour or privileges.

A trope means a common theme. I agree that it’s a trope because it occurs frequently (look at every climate change conference).

I think maybe you meant to say misconception or something like that where the reality is different than understanding. In this case reality is the same as understanding.

Just because they're hypocrites doesn't mean they're wrong. Carpooling or using public transportation and reducing meat intake (especially beef) are empirically direct actions that reduce emissions. There's obviously a lot more power structures could do like stop using taxpayer money to subsidize oil and meat company profits, but that won't stop me from doing what I can with my own two hands.

Refusing to engage in good action because you don't like the messenger is teenage angst behavior, not rational decision making.

But the environmental factor of one Joe Average carpooling with a Bob Average is a lot lower than if Sir Rich Guy uses a Tesla instead of his private jet.

This is like a burning tire yard owner telling people to stop smoking cigarettes to keep the air cleaner.

Being around smokers in public places is still awful regardless of whether there are burning tire yard owners or not. These things are orthogonal to each other and both need to be tackled.

That's true, but I don't really see how the existence of assholes should give me a free pass for being an asshole myself.

Are you really an ashole if you want to eat a steak every now and then? Compared to people who use a private jet to fly 31 miles[0]?

If you want a cleaner planet, start with those who pollute the most, and then go down towards stuff normal people do and use.

[0] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2021/11/02/revealed-a...

Nice strawman. You're not an asshole if you eat a steak every now and then. You're an asshole if you don't look at alternatives even though they're available to you and you can afford them just because you love your steaks too much - regardless of what "those who pollute the most" do.

We would already be much further ahead if everyone could and would eat meat only "every now and then".

The fact that I can see greater assholes than I could ever manage to be whenever I turn on the TV does not mean I get a ticket to be a tiny asshole. It doesn't matter what others do when we're evaluating your behaviour.

I can't influence "those who pollute the most" alone, and a society full of people who don't care themselves won't have a tiniest chance of influencing them either.

> You're an asshole if you don't look at alternatives even though they're available to you and you can afford them just because you love your steaks too much

TIL I’m an asshole because I love and eat steak even though I can afford plant based alternatives that I have zero desire to eat because of how processed they are.

Glad you realized that, it's the necessary first step towards positive change. /s

See, that's a good example of why simply getting angry at the hypocritical richest will lead nowhere, as long as what they do is still socially acceptable at smaller scales. People who would do the exact same thing at their place won't succeed in fighting them.

I just don’t think it’s a binary equation because there is simply not a steak substitute that is fully natural in origin. I won’t eat plant based alternatives to meat because I would rather have a natural foodstuff then an unnatural one and frankly every one I have tried that was touted to be great…sucked.

That said, I’d consider the criticism valid if there was a fully natural product that was a reasonable substitute for a steak that had a better ratio for our planet’s stewardship. Say the discovery of some fungus that on its own and with similar preparation that can act as a steak alternative. If I was opting for steak over that with taste and price being equal, sure criticize away.

> I just don’t think it’s a binary equation

Who does? It's obviously non-binary. What matters is how selfish your choices end up being.

At decision making level, there's little difference between "I'm eating loads of meat cause plant-based steaks are too processed" and "I'm traveling by private jet cause other forms of transportation make me lose too much time". There's no alternative way to travel this fast and convenient.

There is a major difference—I am not trying to justify hypocrisy. I am not going around creating public policy and commanding and preaching to others not to eat steak while eating it myself. If anything, I encourage people to eat steak.

If that still makes me an asshole…so be it. “Asshole” is always arbitrary, hypocrisy is always evident.

These actions are harmful regardless of whether you're being a hypocrite about them or not.

In fact, from an utilitarian point of view, being a hypocrite may actually be less harmful, since you may still influence others to do better. I'm not exactly an utilitarian myself, but that's one possible way to judge.

> but that's one possible way to judge

Sure, as is one possible way for me to judge that judgement is that folks will excuse and explain away all sorts of bad behaviors of the people that they identify as allies to a specific cause they support. Doesn’t make them right, it just makes them assholes…at least from my POV.

the point is it doesn't matter that you are right - all involved parties have to do their part. rich guys point at average Joes and vice versa, and both don't take action because "but the others".

So, how about we ban private jets, both for rich guys and average Joes?

why not? its clearly an inefficient way of travelling, probably MUCH worse than even ordinary flights, which already is a problem. Every bit counts, so lets start with that. (I'd allow some solar powered ultra-light jets (the emission-free thingys), though.)

Once enough people are making sacrifices on their own, the tolerance of assholes polluting freely should finally become less and less, this can get the ball rolling.

But we didn't.

We're pushing down on average working class of people while the rich can do whatever they want. Average joe can't get a plastic bag anymore and has to pay more for even worse alternatives (thick plasic bags need MANY reuses compared to thin plastic bags, plus joe now needs to buy plastic bin liners [0])... but coca cola (company) can still sell sugary water in ten layers of plastic, because reusable glass bottles would cut into their profits.

People are getting more and more fed up with this already.. luckily for some, there are bigger things happening, and people protest for those, but it's a mark of a wider trend happening all over the western world, where there are a set of rules for rich and influential and another for 'normal people'.

[0] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/03/220329142327.h...

The average joe can think about all the unnecessary suffering caused by animal agriculture. Entities do not have empathy, but humans do.

Most people who complain about rich environmentalists flying on private planes seem to be on the right. I don't quite get this: you aren't opposed to the existence of millionaires, are you?

You already accept that some people, through their hard work or inheritance or whatever, are entitled to a larger share of material goods. Why shouldn't they also be entitled to a larger share of the total emissions we decide we can handle? As long as they compensate the rest of us for the privilege, maybe - though people on the right tend not to be too excited over severance taxes either.

Assuming they're OK with great material inequality, which sadly they usually are, a rich environmentalist is not especially hypocritical for talking a bigger share of what nature can bear.

If you fly on a private jet, you atleast shouldn't come on a climate conference and tell poor people not to eat meat and drive their car.

There's really not as much of a logical connection between the two as you think. Replace "fly on a private jet" with any other rich person activity and your sentence still works. So it's not really about flying on a jet.

Did you hear what I said at all? Yes, if you are a capitalist who believes in capitalism, you aren't hypocritical for doing that. It's not a position I agree with, but it's a consistent position, as far as it goes. As long as you pay for your emissions / compensate the rest of the world in the ways we have agreed to, you're in the clear. Someone will take up the slack for you, in return for payment.

(Those ways of compensation may objectively be pathetically inadequate, but so what? It was "voluntary" so it's good enough. That's how it works for everything else things in capitalism, so of course that's how it's going to be that way for emissions as well.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com