Thinking we should just leave billionaies alone and let them do as they wish is nonsense.
The actual savings from Bezos' and Musk's planes is something like 0.000_024 percent. So if it takes 50 years until it gets bad, it'll take about 50 years and 8 minutes after you take away their planes.
Whether something counts should be done with math, not feel good sentiment or pandering to people's envy.
Now look at the chart and focus on energy PRODUCTION. If someone could make enough emission-free electricity, you can get rid of nearly all of it. Except for airplanes, because batteries are heavy - but thankfully that's only 2% and doesn't matter very much.
No matter how you slice it or whatever sentimental argument you throw at it, Bezos, Musk, and Taylor's jets don't add up to anything that matters.
If your argument is "everything but airplanes", it would be interesting to know why you think they are so important?
As for energy consumption reduction leading us back to stone age: it's about cutting the excess to keep what matters, no one arguing for it will pretend for a second that the excess stops at stone age level. Thankfully it doesn't even go as far as 250 years ago, when our world was still entirely renewable.
If commuting for 50km for work is what matters, cutting the excess means replacing many SUVs by an (electric) bus or a train plus an e-bike. And maybe create jobs or housing closer. Not "not working" or "dying".
Eliminate air travel: 1.9%
Eliminate all trucking and cars: 11.9%
Eliminate residential heating/cooling: 10.9%
Eliminate commercial energy use: 6.6%
And so on...
Ok, so now look at it from the energy production side. Get real serious about nuclear or wind/solar/batteries (and a few agricultural changes), and you could actually make a difference.
This is usually the point where someone says nuclear plants are always over cost and take too long to build, but the US military has hundreds of reactors running safely, and they were constructed for some government definition of "on time". If we were serious about achieving the goal in the US, we'd be pushing for a new branch of the military to manage public reactors or something, or we'd get real serious about batteries.
Btw, I fucking hate flying. The experience is miserable, and I can deal with ground/water shipping for anything I buy. It wouldn't change my life one bit if we grounded all the airplanes. But I'm not dumb enough to think that would change anything about the predictions for the climate, and flying has benefits to other people. The point was that you can't really solve air flight with batteries or nuclear power, so thankfully 2% isn't much.
Look at the chart. Cement, Iron, and Steel are responsible 10.2% of global emissions. Without those, it's almost the definition of stone age. I'm not sure about "renewable", but the world was not zero emissions 250 years ago. There were just fewer people.
Only if you simplify everything beyond all measures. But the climate is a little more complicated than "we can only emit X more tons before things get bad".
As an example, there are feedback loops that accelerate climate change once hit. Over time this amplifies the effect of any reduction we achieve now.
Also, the more time we have to "find a solution" as many people bet on, the more of our current biosphere will survive. Aside from any moral obligations, this is obviously in our best interest as it increases the chances of more humans surviving.
Even if you argue against these points, there are many others - none included in the math you've done.
Do you really think that saving .000024% by getting rid of Bezos and Musk's jets is going to delay that complicated feedback loop and buy someone the time to save the world? Do you really think 2% is going to delay anything significantly?
Because I don't see how you can "it's complicated" your way into that belief.
> Do you really think 2% is going to delay anything significantly?
As soon as you define "significantly", I'll gladly answer your question.
If your answer isn't measured in years, possibly with a confidence interval, we'll both know this is more of you trying to "win" an internet discussion by arguing in bad faith.
We're currently experiencing a mass extinction only rivaled by previous incredibly catastrophic events. Even a single year could mean whole ecosystems collapsing or not collapsing. If we find a technological solution for climate change in 2050, but critical species went extinct due to overheating in 2049, the 2% air emissions will be the difference between billions of people dying or not dying.
I don't know how to quantify these risks, and apparently neither do you. But that doesn't mean we can ignore them when we consider the best course of action. It only means: your model is insufficient and simplifies things beyond reason.
The reason for pointing out insignificant things is so that people aren't distracted from the significant things.
"It's complicated." So go ahead and keep everyone worrying about Taylor Swift's jet. Create a carbon tax for billionaires. Offset the emissions, or whatever. But you aren't looking at things that could actually make a difference.
> Obviously I don't believe that this scenario will literally happen
So you don't think that's really plausible, and I don't think it was a good faith argument.
I'm going to say it again, because I don't think you got it: The reason for criticizing when people focus on insignificant things is because it's a distraction from focusing on things that could actually make a difference.
Unless you believe that humanity will 100% die off or 100% fix climate change tomorrow, the chance of a 2% reduction in CO2 output having no measurable effect on our future is close to 0%, yet your modelling puts it at close to 100%.
I'm going to say it again, because I don't think you got it: you're deliberately misrepresenting the situation and simplifying things beyond reason. The correct response to an inability to model something isn't to just leave it out. You specifically pointed out that we should make these decisions based on math, but your math is incomplete enough to be useless.
Btw, since you're only really interested in winning debates, you probably shouldn't open the window for other people to define the terms. When you asked me for a definition of "significant", it puts you in a bad spot no matter whether you do or don't respond to it. Of course you didn't respond with a number of years, because that would support my point. I gave a really concrete scenario, and you refused to answer, and it was obvious to both of us why you didn't answer.
Best of luck in your future internet battles. Everyone needs a hobby.