Should Private Jets be banned?

[parochial boy]

Or is that just hatred of the job-creating rich, and actually the solution to climate change is everybody else using paper straws and weeing in the shower?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

this seems like a good way for environmentalists to escape the faux friends of Hollywood and the C-Suite, who only serve to alienate ordinary people through their pompous hypocricy.

Greens unironically should be like "we've had enough of these WEF frauds who fake support for the environment and claim the 99 percent must eat bugs while they eat sirloin".

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I would vote yes here. Take the normal plane like anyone else. Or if you don't have to cross ocean or large distances, take at least a car or something like that. Private jets simply cannot be justified.

Johnson takes private jet from Cop26 to London to attend dinner

This for example tells one enough they should need to know, especially if COP26 was literally in Glasgow.

I cannot trust leaders like these to represent environmental interest on a global stage, simple.

[Del Tachi]

But then how will the Eurocrats and John Kerrys of the world travel to global climate summits in Davos and the Maldives!?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This is utterly economically illiterate and would actually serve to lower our ability to fight climate change, due to reduced economic efficiency.

[Continential]

Yes but I could see a lot of loopholes regarding a hypothetical ban.

[DavidB.]

No, but they should not be exempt from the EU jet fuel tax while us mortals who fly commercial do have to pay (normal)

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

This is utterly economically illiterate and would actually serve to lower our ability to fight climate change, due to reduced economic efficiency.

Do you really think CFOs having to take business class airlines would ne that much of a bottleneck on the economy lol?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This is utterly economically illiterate and would actually serve to lower our ability to fight climate change, due to reduced economic efficiency.

Do you really think CFOs having to take business class airlines would ne that much of a bottleneck on the economy lol?

Yes, it does make the economy more efficient for a business executive to be able to have their own way to travel regardless of typical airplane schedules. The time of business executives is very precious and them being able to use it efficiently, to their own specifications, is important for the wider economy to generate the tax revenue we need to fight climate change the most effectively.

[Pedocon Theory is not a theory]

This is utterly economically illiterate and would actually serve to lower our ability to fight climate change, due to reduced economic efficiency.

Do you really think CFOs having to take business class airlines would ne that much of a bottleneck on the economy lol?

Yes, it does make the economy more efficient for a business executive to be able to have their own way to travel regardless of typical airplane schedules. The time of business executives is very precious and them being able to use it efficiently, to their own specifications, is important for the wider economy to generate the tax revenue we need to fight climate change the most effectively.

[citation needed]

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

If they are so desperate, fly in a bloody light aircraft

[Perlen vor den Schweinen]

If they are so desperate, fly in a bloody light aircraft

They wouldn't be caught dead in a bloody light aircraft. Instead, they'd be caught dead in a gory, heavy, private jet. Your life was in vain if you didn't go out in a pulp on the most expensive vehicle you could buy.

[dead0man]

no

1.I'm not into banning things
2.I don't know the details, but I have to imagine "private jets" make up .00003% of global pollution
3.it's one of those things that "lets the rest of us know who the assholes are"
4.light jets are kind of cool

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

no

1.I'm not into banning things
2.I don't know the details, but I have to imagine "private jets" make up .00003% of global pollution
3.it's one of those things that "lets the rest of us know who the assholes are"
4.light jets are kind of cool

Fyi, my "this doesn't help fight climate change" posts were focused on discrediting the reason people propose this. I disagree with this idea on some other grounds as well, especially 1, and 2 on this.

It also needs to be said that belief in "silver bullets" or easy solutions, while seductive, is often misleading. And a lot of "utopian" ideas that suggest "X does Y, so let's do X, nothing matters except X" ignore the consequences have ended up pretty badly IRL...

[Sol]

no

1.I'm not into banning things
2.I don't know the details, but I have to imagine "private jets" make up .00003% of global pollution
3.it's one of those things that "lets the rest of us know who the assholes are"
4.light jets are kind of cool

Fyi, my "this doesn't help fight climate change" posts were focused on discrediting the reason people propose this. I disagree with this idea on some other grounds as well, especially 1, and 2 on this.

It also needs to be said that belief in "silver bullets" or easy solutions, while seductive, is often misleading. And a lot of "utopian" ideas that suggest "X does Y, so let's do X, nothing matters except X" ignore the consequences have ended up pretty badly IRL...

Nobody thinks that this would solve climate change. But every little bit helps.

[parochial boy]

Nobody is suggesting it is a silver bullet. But the argument that they aren’t a massive part of global émissions doesn’t reall hold because by that logic there is no point in doing anything because there is no magic bullet overall

The point is really twofold. One is that the top 0.1% in the world emit 400 times as much carbon as the average person on this planet does. So quite obviously if we are to all drive out emissions then they will have to drive theirs down much further and much faster because they are actually a huge part of the problem despite being so numerically few.

The second is that, as Crabcake already suggested, if you go around telling people they need to eat less meat, drive less or pay to insulate their house; and then allow billionaires to fanny about in their private jets like it’s not their problem, then people are going to cotton on to the hypocrisy. And they will rightfully reject the idea that they are supposed to make a load of sacrifices just for the rich to keep on as usual in their hypocritical and self indulgent little bubble.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

no

1.I'm not into banning things
2.I don't know the details, but I have to imagine "private jets" make up .00003% of global pollution
3.it's one of those things that "lets the rest of us know who the assholes are"
4.light jets are kind of cool

Fyi, my "this doesn't help fight climate change" posts were focused on discrediting the reason people propose this. I disagree with this idea on some other grounds as well, especially 1, and 2 on this.

It also needs to be said that belief in "silver bullets" or easy solutions, while seductive, is often misleading. And a lot of "utopian" ideas that suggest "X does Y, so let's do X, nothing matters except X" ignore the consequences have ended up pretty badly IRL...

Nobody thinks that this would solve climate change. But every little bit helps.

Climate change is a complex, long-running thing we'll have to manage carefully over the coming years. Just because a case can be made that X policy will produce less C02 because it targets certain activity, does not even mean that's a sane policy.
It's not a race, it's a marathon, and we need to consider where we'll be when we finish it. It's also important to make sure that the climate change policy in question is not utterly toxic politics as well, because then if we lose an election, the policy we instituted can get repealed.
Not only does banning private jets look very unlikely to cut actual emissions much in the broader scheme of things, but it is likely to allow those who dislike climate action to gain particular footing as well, even if it is, individually, a popular policy. In politics, what matters is not the truth but rather, what people perceive to be the truth.

As for parochialboy's comments: I (and most people in society, really) don't think something is good to do just because it might drive down emissions. There's a smart way to do it, then there's a "damn the consequences" one that actually hurts our ability to fight climate change in the long run, regardless of any (potentially very-)short-term benefits.

What's the use in winning the marathon if you die from overextersion by the end?

The single biggest issue re: C02 isn't the behavior of our elite, it's the Third World getting more and more developed. We're cutting fossil fuel levels, but Third World countries are massively increasing their contributions merely by improving their economic situation over time, and that's something that a proposal like this ignores completely.

Why should we give up things like private jets and burgers, substantially lowering our standard of living, when it will be all for naught because of Congo, Tanzania, India, and other countries will render our sacrifices irrelevant?

[Alben Barkley]

Literally everybody in this thread would use a private jet if they could, so who are the real "hypocrites?"

[dead0man]

Is this just about banning new private jets or do you plan on scrapping on all the current ones and straight banning them?  The latter seems very wasteful.  And if we did ban all private jets, wouldn't they just replace them with fast prop planes?  I can't imagine those are substantially more fuel efficient than private jets.  Unless the end game is to ban all private flying?  That sounds crazy to me, but it wouldn't be the first time environmentalists asked for something crazy.

[Mr. Smith]

No, just excessively regulate and disincentivize until a ban would look merciful.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

I would vote yes here. Take the normal plane like anyone else. Or if you don't have to cross ocean or large distances, take at least a car or something like that. Private jets simply cannot be justified.

Johnson takes private jet from Cop26 to London to attend dinner

This for example tells one enough they should need to know, especially if COP26 was literally in Glasgow.

I cannot trust leaders like these to represent environmental interest on a global stage, simple.

Yes. I'm sure President Biden can just hop on a United flight for important meetings!

Obviously since you are you China would have an exception under this policy.

[David Hume]

Voted No because I am libertarian and value individual liberty. However I support extremely heavy taxes on private jets.

[Aurelius]

this seems like a good way for environmentalists to escape the faux friends of Hollywood and the C-Suite, who only serve to alienate ordinary people through their pompous hypocricy.

Greens unironically should be like "we've had enough of these WEF frauds who fake support for the environment and claim the 99 percent must eat bugs while they eat sirloin".

I simply support banning the WEF. 

[President Johnson]

No. That more feels like a punishment for being wealthy enough to afford a private jet. I support taxing the rich and closing tax loopholes, I just don't think a ban is appropriate.

Planes and jets should become more climate-friendly of course. I'd prefer to use some tax revenues on air traffic to promote innovation though.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Would this include charter flights?