So because we can account for 20% of emissions ourselves we shouldn’t bother going after those responsible for the other 80%?
Why do you think we shouldn’t? (Or, alternatively, how do you come to a conclusion that someone thinks we shouldn’t go after those responsible for the majority of emissions
Your thinking is extremely foreign to me and I would be interested in hearing your reasoning!
What you’re saying is we’re also to blame because we participate, as a society, in 10% of global emissions by flying. What about those same few who fly 2 people at a time in a private jet instead of 200+ in an airliner? People like that Starbucks CEO who would commute from LA to Seattle in a corporate jet, or any other rich fucker who can’t be seen near the poors and has to put out thousands on times the amount of emissions as the average person.
Sure, I’ll take my 0.000000001% of the blame, and Brian Niccol can take his personal 0.1%.
out of 8 billion people is 0.08 people. That does not compete. No, there maybe about 2 billion people who actively use airplanes for holiday trips. And almost all of the planes’ emissions come from them. So, take 0.000000003% of that blame.
But really: As much as I hate those private jets as a concept, their share of the total emissions of all flights are negligible. There is a website called FlightRadar24 where you can see airplanes currently in flight. You have very few private jets among the huge passenger planes. I’d say maybe one private plane to 50-ish large planes or so? And remember, a private jet is so much lighter than those big jets for hundreds of passengers that their fuel consumption is also a fraction.
Yes, also the rich should absolutely do their part. But in this case, because they are so very few, them doing or not doing their part won’t be visible under the line. Their effect on airplanes’ total emissions is so small that it gets eaten by the error margin. No, in this case other people being very very shitty does not mean that we 99.9 % can be shitty as well.
In any case, who is to blame is a stupid thing to concentrate on here. We know that billions of people are likely to die because of climate change. Reducing the emissions by 10 % can easily save the lives of several hundred million people. Possibly even over a billion. If I need to do something that is unfair towards me to keep my children alive, then I will do that. It’s a bit like if someone robs you and it’s clear that they will kill you if you don’t give the contents of your wallet – a 100 € note and a 20 € note – it is very clear that the robber’s behaviour is unethical. Will you burn your two banknotes and get killed by the robber just so that he couldn’t make it off with your money? Or will you give him the 120 €, stay alive and continue your life?
I hate it when people go “Yes, of course I can kill my own children and your children as well because most rich people are killing children as well, and they kill more than I do!” Someone being extremely shitty does not mean that you are allowed to be shitty. Not even if that someone is 5000 times as shitty as you.
To stay alive as a species, we must cut our emissions. If the only way to do so is unfair towards me, then so be it.
chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 7 months ago
I find it hard to believe that emissions would drop by 80% just by getting rid of all the billionaires. Or did you mean all of Western civilization when you said “those responsible for the other 80%”?
ArchmageAzor@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Guess who, in the end, owns all the factories, the powerplants, the cargo ships, the mines, and who lobbies in favor of them.
chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Who buys and uses all the stuff produced by those factories and delivered by those cargo ships?