Billionaires emit more CO₂ in 90 minutes than most people do in a lifetime
oxfam.org
oxfam.org
"ban or punitively tax carbon-intensive luxury consumptions — starting with private jets and superyachts"
Most of that those giant emissions are your daily commute etc. The aren't enough private jets to really make a dent compared to all the middle-class car drivers.
Merely being a reasonable demand isn't enough to get a law or treaty. A good intention won't be enough, a likely significant effect is politically necessary.
Daily commutes, even by IC car, are not the bulk of carbon emissions. Carbon emissions from all transport are only about 1/3 of total emissions, with commutes being a subset of that. The bulk of emissions, the other 2/3, are from non-transport things like electricity and food production. Installing some solar panels and not eating meat might be more effective than avoiding the daily commute.
A treaty that is sure not to move the needle won't get signed.
This line of reasoning can be applied at any level: "my commute to the office? Oh, that doesn't matter, it's the big factories, the big coal-based power plants that pollute. It's the billionaires that pollute. Not me."
So either we all stop shifting the blame on somebody else and we all start cutting our carbon emissions or, we might as well enjoy polluting: we can still blame it on somebody else! (i'm being bitterly sarcastic here)
https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/why-it-...
>>Britain's most expensive airport parking is at Heathrow Terminal 5, where the 24-hour rate of £51.80 costs more than an off-peak flight to Aberdeen. Heathrow, along with Gatwick and Stansted, does not routinely handle light aircraft. Manchester is by far the biggest regional airport. It charges £35 for 24 hours in the short-stay car park, but only £21 to park a Piper PA-46 – a six-seater light aircraft that weighs just under two tonnes.
However, I don't think their investment should really count (or at least not totally) as their own co2 emissions. If they have shares in BP or Shell for example, the emissions of those two companies should be counted towards those who buy their products, in my opinion.
If europeans are so upset about the emission of American private jets and yachts, don't grant landing/overflight/docking permissions then? Most of that fuel would be used crossing the Atlantic. Build a few more nice airplane first class suites in the EU airlines so the billionaires can still travel with their comforts?
1. suffer the most from global warming
and
2. currently aren't in any position to negotiate or enforce their rights
Relevant quotes:
"Counting dead bodies after a typhoon isn’t something any child should have to do."
"Rich countries have failed to keep their $100 billion climate finance promise"
"Rich countries continue to resist calls for climate reparations."
You only have to observe how we behave once we get residence in EU/America/Australia and how quickly we forget our compatriots left behind.
Don't fall for this faux outrage.
https://youtu.be/1A8oyO9LoOo?list=PLZJe-MWy0cYc6g4XGnbAdenV4...
Governments must introduce permanent income and wealth taxes on the top 1 percent, ban or punitively tax carbon-intensive luxury consumptions —starting with private jets and superyachts— and regulate corporations and investors to drastically and fairly reduce their emissions.
Americans should be, too.
Seriously though, its not the absolute value of direct impact that matters here (or even the indirect via their investments) but the multiple negative messages that it sends to the billions of non-billionaires:
- that the burden of shifting towards sustainable living will not be felt and shared fairly
- that the pinnacle of "worldy success" means also not caring about your impact on the rest
While countless studies have looked at corporate and consumer responsibilities at macro level, the role of individual ownership much less so. Mostly the work of Chancel and Piketty
Millions of people being lifted from lower into middle-class is sure to be much worse for climate change. Poorer countries tend to not have the infrastructure to support a green power grid, and they generally need carbohydrates to industrialize.
In many countries the top 10% of earners tend to bankroll most government spending due to progressive taxation. If that income was distributed to the bottom 90%, the lower tax brackets would lead to much lower tax revenue in advanced economies, meaning that governments have less to spend on switching to green power sources and the infrastructure to support them.
But of course blaming the rich is a more comfortable truth for many, because covering up envy as a fight against injustice is killing two birds of morality with one stone.