Since 99.9% of the flights and the people are already registered, there should be a worldwide limitation per each of the person for CO2 emissions.
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.
Make it progressively more expensive to fly more miles to moderate the excesses; offer tax breaks where it is beneficial for the entire community.
Then you don't have to track for everyone, just target those who are ostensibly breaking the limit.
A limit of miles/kg per person would be a very simple database to set up
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
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.