Kind of ironic given the flight from the UN headquarters to Tonga generates nearly 1500 kg of CO2 per person.
Loves the drink but curses the bottle.
That said, it would be refreshing if public figures led by example. So if we're serious about changing public perception, maybe we should create viable alternatives to jet airline travel and encourage them to use them. Here viable means getting there with comparable travel time and cost but fewer CO2 emissions.
Until then, without viable alternatives, criticizing environmentalists for traveling the way everyone else does is not a great look, and I think we're entering an era where we'll be seeing influencers and politicians called out for it in real time.
That's the rub. It's rarely comparable travel time except some point to points. Even in Europe. I travel by train within Europe (mostly) whenever I can. But it usually takes longer, costs more, and may involve sleepers on longer routes.
To your point, I don't think people take umbrage with creating or advocating for compelling alternatives. But there's a difference between that and playing the blame game.
Right, it's indeed the "Al Gore flies first class so let's not do anything about global warming" zombie rising from the dead.
Your type won't shut up with this nonsense until you hear a hermit saying it from the comfort of his hut. Except you won't listen then as well.
Leadership gets their power from the same plants as everyone else.
What if alternatives are worse? Slower? More expensive? What if alternatives will only be available after we get a steady supply of biomass driven by clean fusion?
What if "encouraging" doesn't work?
Then what -- keep flying, pumping CO2 and sleepwalking into disaster we all know is happening?
You're talking as if air travel isn't the slowest and/or most expensive option in some cases. See for example high-speed rail for travel distances under 800km.
Focus on solveable problems. If you plot on the vertical axis amount of CO2 emitted and on horizontal public enthusiasm, flying is in the bottom right. It's a stupid thing to lobby against because for each unit of effort expended you're removing comparatively little CO2.
Just like the sacrifices they expect the rest of us to make? They want me to give up my car for one with worse range or no car at all, while they still get to own cars and fly on jets because "there aren't many rich people, it's only logical that we are given a pass for everything we want you to stop doing."
Speaking as someone who flies for high-value meetings, I will beat the guy literally phoning it in about three times out of four solely because I expended the effort to meet in person. Partly because it's a social gesture, showing I'm willing to expend time and resources for the person [1]. Partly because we're human beings who connect better in person than virtually.
When the stakes are international relations, the CO2 impact of the flights is peanuts.
And what are the stakes in practice?
Meetings of the G7 probably have a real impact on international relations. But in this comparison, the UN is cargo cult politics (they pretend really hard to be doing it) and Guterres' travel to Tonga a barely masked vacation at someone's else's dime.
Not just refreshing, but absolutely crucial. If there is a critical shortage of something in 2024 politics, it is integrity and trust. Everyone can hold speeches, but few can do it in a way that doesn't make them instant hypocrites.
I’ve been thinking about what carbon price would change people’s behavior and incentivize alternatives, $100 a ton is a round number close to estimates of what it costs to capture carbon from an oil refinery or coal burning power plant. It adds $1 a gallon to gas prices which people would bitch about in the US (e.g. Kamala Harris’s answer to “what do you do about climate change” in the debate was basically “drill baby drill” because she wants to win) but I don’t think would change behavior (gas was $1 a gallon before and I didn’t change my driving habits; $500 a year more in gas is not quite enough to make an EV attractive, 3x that is getting there)
Similarly adding $150 to that ticket isn’t going to stop people from making that flight.
But blaming oil companies for providing for consumer demand while they also propping up modern Western economies is kind of pointless. Oil companies have even signaled a willingness to divest from their products. Investment in new exploration was at an all time low until the current administration actively encouraged the industry to expand.
That's a wildly optimistic number, and almost certainly too low for the carbon sources yoU're naming. Equinor estimated over 600USD for gas burners at an LNG plant, under almost ideal conditions (existing nearby storage site, company with lots of experience): https://industrydecarbonization.com/news/is-carbon-capture-a...