Celebrity Flights
celebrityflight.com
celebrityflight.com
Some things never change, and one of them is the way in which the elites take a tacitly "do as I say, not as I do" approach to their discourse.
Generally, flights like that one exist because the airplane is somewhere other than the most convenient place for the owner to take off from, so the crew repositions the plane in a better location for a more convenient pick up.
I don't think that this really invalidates your overall conclusion or anything, just wanted to point that out.
VFR- "Visual Flight Rules"
Source- https://atpflightschool.com/become-a-pilot/flight-training/v...
If that’s not the case, I have no idea why anyone would fly from Atlanta to Savannah and then depart again 2 hours later. Must be rented out to others
Savannah is such a hidden and unique gem, and truly one of the most beautiful cities in the country. It's not hard to imagine taking a quick meeting there. Lots of important people flow through the city.
I'm hoping we get high speed rail on the Atlanta-Savannah corridor one day. The drive is a real slog and it's filled with deceptively unfair speed traps from podunk little towns using speeding tickets as their primary source of revenue.
Atlanta -> Savannah -> Atlanta with a 2-hour turnaround could be hundred-dollar hamburger. It might also be two different people using the jet. But... TBH, it might also be that she owns a jet and wants to take a day-trip.
Disclaimer: Data presented is not manually verified and its accuracy is not guaranteed.
and is a tiny single-prop aircraft. I don't think you could go cross-country in it.
Routine private jet flights are nothing compared to last mile freight such as Amazon. Short frequent trips by delivery drivers from your local warehouse to your doorstep should not be so wasteful.
The largest source of pollution is freight in general. Hating on individuals solves nothing at all.
If you had people to do that for you, why would you do that yourself? You tell your personal assistant to get a new iphone for you, new drapes for the living room, whatever.
Don’t they bundle these up so each trip serves as many people as possible?
Also isn’t the alternative where the customer drives themselves to the store to pick up the same good just as bad if not possibly worse?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/21/worlds-r...
Private jets are a distraction from the real sources of emissions. But people start rioting when their power bills go up.
Oh wait: https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/transportation/everything-y...
It does. It's a huge problem with so many complexities and requires so many sacrifices by all inhabitants of the planet.
The celebrities are already calling dibs on the problem claiming that they are the ones who solved it. If sacrifices are needed then some climate change dividend is also required at the end of such effort. And if there is no dividend for us then there shouldn't be for the celebrities.
It's only positive that an out of scale public shame would fall on them for flying private as it counteracts their massive PR effort orchestrated to fool the world into thinking that they alone have solved climate change or that they are 'the person who is doing the most in the world to solve climate change'.
At some point soon I expect he'll get an electric van, but other than that, I'm not sure how anyone could get stuff from businesses to people in a more efficient manner.
Taylor Swift would be mobbed everywhere in the airport.
Donald was a former president. The Secret Service doesn't let you drive a car after that, let alone fly commercial. Even if they wanted to; they can't. Many former presidents were car fanatics; Bush Jr. lamented to Jay Leno about not being able to drive his truck off private property anymore. 45 was known for sneaking past security detail in his pre-POTUS days to drive his Rolls around NYC. Not to mention Biden and his Corvettes, in his pre-dementia days anyway.
This article is implying wrongdoing for situations can logically cannot exist.
It seems that the vast majority of people have an innate need to hate on other groups of people. Not only that, but it seems that when presented with a cross-cutting societal problem (like carbon neutrality), "hating on others" seems to be a substitute for actually doing something intelligent about the problem.
Our society is fundamentally based on energy use, and if we actually collectively cared about carbon-neutrality, we have an immense amount of potential clean energy available to us in the form of solar and nuclear. There's no need to play this silly hate game.
I'd even say this has little to do with carbon emissions, and much to do with the price of economy tickets for many routes having doubled over the past months, and it'll likely only go up from here in the foreseeable future as we (hopefully) shift to synthetic aviation fuels. Taking a private flight for a very driveable distance, or a connection that has excellent and frequent first-class services available, just isn't the best look right now between sustained high inflation and the common narrative of individualizing the responsibility for carbon emissions.
But yes, I agree that symbolic regulations and prohibitions without a viable alternative won't get us anywhere. Only setting effective regulatory incentives that properly account for the externalities of all forms of energy use will.
That seems like nonsense to me. And if it wasn't, if they had an actual need for that, who are you to criticize it?
No but back in the old days people with money had the justified fear and paranoia to keep quiet in order to avoid drawing attention to themselves and not be expropriated and/or executed.
They now not only don't hide but go out of their way to broadcast whatever opinion they have through the airwaves and especially on climate change the juxtaposition of talking about climate change while pumping into the atmosphere 1000 tons of CO2 per year is symptomatic of a sense of entitlement and not fearing any punishment or repercussion for their actions.
I didn't know small private jets were capable of long haul flights like that without stopping.
See Hawaii as the latest example.
I live in a western country, imagine a 65 year old tech nerd from Somalia on HN - how aware of American celebraties do you feel they'd be?
Or... maybe he's taking aerial photography -- always watching! /s
(Also, that vested interest has been demonstrated in recent history. Keep in mind that it was ultimately plane-spotters who originally busted the extraordinary rendition policy of the US government open... They noticed planes had changed their regular flight patterns significantly).
For a low price per car we could track all cars and also ensure they don't break a bunch of rules (say speed, acceleration, traffic lights) where drivers endanger others.
(Of course, every car has a license plate and if somebody were to establish an infrastructure for tracking all of those plates and correlating it to motion of vehicles... I'm actually not against that. I'm of the personal opinion that we are far too deferential to drivers and do not demand nearly enough responsibility from them, and the fatality rates on roads are demonstrative of this).
> This confuses the issue though. ICAO numbers change if your aircraft is enrolled in the PIA program, which Elon is. Sweeny was bypassing this by using people on the ground to circumvent this by watching the jet's movement and if an aircraft was going to takeoff that had an unknown ICAO number he'd have someone at the airport to figure out it was Elon's jet that had changed it's ICAO number.
> Your link will only be valid until he again changes his ICAO number.
> More info: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/technology/equipadsb/privacy
These people don’t care about celebrities. They literally sit and watch planes take off for hours at a time because they enjoy it. Nearly every airport has a field of people doing that regardless of whether celebrities are around.
Just wondering because this is such blatant clickbait material for an editorial, I won’t be surprised if an article about it is being written right now.
I do agree having a separate list of who pays the most in taxes relative to wealth/income would be interesting but also obviously less accurat.
We should pay less taxes because the government is extremely wasteful and polluting overall.
US military is the only reason you don't know what war is.
Do you think Mark Zuckerberg would argue in favour of greater privacy for you?
I think the effort of making flight data private (and all of the solutions we'd need to find for very important transponder/communications technology) is better spent on other privacy issues first.
Make it progressively more expensive to fly more miles to moderate the excesses; offer tax breaks where it is beneficial for the entire community.
That kind of ideas is parroted by people would be the first to suffer, while the "elite" will of course be exempted to comply. This is yet another power grab for the happy few.
A limit of miles/kg per person would be a very simple database to set up
What is the penalty for exceeding said limit in your fantasy?
edit
Just out of curiosity I took what seems to be the "average" of the reported number of billionaires in America as 800, and the average yearly CO2 from flying via the linked article at a high point of also say 800 tons (which is likely high but easy math). That works out to 640000 tons of CO2 from all the billionaires flying around in a year.
Another quick search on how much CO2 is produced in the USA per year came out as 5.2 billion metric tons.
That means these flights are accounting for 0.0123076923% of the USA's CO2 production ... or put another way it's a rounding error.
I'm not the guy who has the golden law that will change the world. I'm just proposing that CO2 emission is a big problem and some of the people are exploiting it.
Which if you look back it logically now with all the evidence, we have in hindsight was an overreach that did very little good.
>I'm not the guy who has the golden law that will change the world. I'm just proposing that CO2 emission is a big problem and some of the people are exploiting it.
Which I get - however the problem with your comment (and much of the internet as a whole) is that people see a complex problem and toss out a twitter sized "obvious solution" to it without any actual thought behind it, this then causes all kinds of noise with very little signal and furthers divides. Just by replying to you some other person suggested I was "triggered" and must be on said list... That's the problem.
Your comment comes across as yet another average joe randomly defending billionaires wrecking the world while we take the consequences of it. Meanwhile yet another daily disaster in nature, 100s of dolphins are dead today from record temperatures https://www.insider.com/dolphins-dead-brazil-amazon-lake-rec...
Your only response to someone finding this a gross overreach is to try and strawman them by suggesting I'm personally on the list?
I'm not defending billionaires any more than I'm defending an average person. Going down the road suggested (putting yearly or lifetime caps on how much CO2 you can produce) is frankly terrifying.
Tax the hell out of the fuel, charge larger landing fees, etc etc are all better options than having some sort of invisible countdown over everyone's head that for CO2 emissions.
The average person will be priced out by taxes and increased fees far long before any mega wealthy person will even feel it as a stiff breeze against their accounts.
Just out of curiosity I took what seems to be the "average" of the reported number of billionaires in America as 800, and the average yearly CO2 from flying via the linked article at a high point of also say 800 tons (which is likely high but easy math). That works out to 640000 tons of CO2 from all the billionaires flying around in a year.
Another quick search on how much CO2 is produced in the USA per year came out as 5.2 billion metric tons.
That means these flights are accounting for 0.0123076923% of the USA's CO2 production ... or put another way it's a rounding error.
It's a bit inane considering crimping less than a 1000 peoples lifestyle would save us 1.2% right off the bat.
And seriously other than they are super duper rich why should we care about them at all?
This is not about the percentage of CO2 over the total.
People don't want to be chastised by hypocrites, it's the same as a President who declares that "heavy human losses are a price to pay for victory" and then exempts his 2 sons from serving.
2 soldiers are nothing in the face of a National military mobilization for a war, but nonetheless the public opinion would rightfully be enraged as soon as the reports come out about how the President's sons are draft dodgers.
And in a country that has institutions that work as it should they are grounds for removal.
Similarly emitting 1000 tons or even just 1 ton of CO2 in the environment should be ground for removal from the public discourse about climate change.
But that's not what the person I was speaking with was arguing for they wanted a cap on CO2 emissions on an individual basis.
As far as being "chastised by hypocrites" how many of the billionares that were mentioned are out there "chastising" people - keeping in mind there is a difference between chastising (ie. Hey, you average citizen you're doing something wrong stop it) and bringing awareness to an issue (ie. Climate change is impacting the planet).
Someone using a massive platform (fame) to spread a message that they may not fully buy into but is for the greater good isn't a terrible thing.
The moment a famous person says “we should” instead of “I should” they are chastising people
Saying "we should" is not chastising anyone - saying "you're evil for doing" would be chastising.
Same thing for the PR of mr. Gates and the constant noise put into every media by mr. Musk.
So yes whatever you want to call it the point stands. Normal people don't like it and the approval rating goes down everywhere for the public person who does it, except among the fake circles of the Oscars and the Met Gala where swarms of aspiring celebrities don't miss a chance to give a good blowie and fluffing to what is perceived to be the celebrity of the moment who appeared the most all over media to virtue signal
This is so painfully, hilariously wrong that I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. You could vaporize all billionaires in the world and it wouldn’t make any detectable difference to climate change.
This specific idea of limiting CO2 is being taken a bit too out of context of the broader point. Sanctions against Russia hasn't stopped the murder, any more than limiting individual CO2 consumption would stop climate change. Yet both are correct actions because they are steps in the direction of fixing larger issues.
EDIT: clarify wording
Instead of this petty, divisive and hostile nonsense, how about we just acknowledge that our civilization is fundamentally based on energy use, and work towards making all our energy use carbon-neutral?
Our planet receives enough harnessable solar energy to allow every single human being an energy allocation far in excess of a typical American.
There's absolutely no need to be hostile towards other people's energy use. Advocate for fundamental change, not petty ineffectual bullshit.
What would be your suggestion on Kardaishan's energy consumption levels? Having a crash course?
Couldn't care less. Seriously, go do the math on how much energy is available to us. It will blow your ignorant little mind.
The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones either.
Yes, but is it currently being harvested? Do we have a plausible path towards that future?
> There's absolutely no need to be hostile towards other people's energy use.
No, but there's a dire need to properly account for the externalities of everybody's CO2 emissions if we want to be able to plausibly call our economy market-based.
Especially diplomatic problems are about tit for tat.
Kennedy and Kruschev disengaged the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 via letters taking 8 hours to reach the other party
Then you don't have to track for everyone, just target those who are ostensibly breaking the limit.