
1500 Private Jets Fly to Davos for Climate Talks - kyleblarson
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/jan/22/record-private-jet-flights-davos-leaders-climate-talk
======
eric_b
Unpopular Opinion: There is no viable solution to climate change through
policy or political action.

No one wants to give up their own personal comfort or lifestyle for the sake
of "the planet." Even people I know who are self-described ardent
environmentalists still fly in planes frequently to all manner of touristy
destinations so they can keep "collecting experiences."

Shit, look at Paris. They champion this climate accord and the minute the
government raises taxes on fuel to help pay for some the policies, the people
riot and destroy things and the government backs down.

The only "solution" to climate change, if you can call it that, is through
technology and adaptation. As the Earth warms and the waters rise, people will
need to move, and we will need to create new technology to ensure our
agricultural production doesn't lessen and we can keep feeding people.

Honestly I don't really think it's gonna get all Mad Max/Extinction Level
Event, but who knows, it might!

~~~
rcMgD2BwE72F
>No one wants to give up their own personal comfort or lifestyle for the sake
of "the planet."

Seriously?

Who are you to say that of others?!

I'm French (Parisian, actually) and I keep demonstrating with yellow vests to
try and force political action so we can save the biosphere.

I've been giving up on my personal comfort _for years_ to reduce my
environment footprint and help others do the same: I don't go skiing anymore,
I don't fly, I stopped driving (this morning, like any, I rode a bicycle
although it's snowing heavily in Paris), I spend more and more to buy organic
food for the environment (not for my health but to support farmers who care),
I spend hours every weeks in NGO and various "1901 associations" to better
understand how other can save the environment (even though it's extremely
difficult for many, especially the poor) and to help others caring about the
environment. I've been changing everything in my life _just for the
environment_ (I don't want to live on a dying Earth and watch the world burn),
and I really don't know what I can do more.

I'm really tired and comments like yours are really adding insult to the
injury.

I really want to scream a big F*CK you to your face for saying that "No one
wants to give up their own personal comfort or lifestyle for the sake of "the
planet."". Can you understand that? You seem to have given up any hope in
political change, but please, don't speak for other.

Edit: one might think I can simply afford spending times and money of trying
to reduce the environment but when you've reduced consumption to the minimum,
work in a company that try its best to develop technologies to trigger an
energy revolution and spend as much time and money possible to accelerate the
movement, there's little else one can do to not rerupt when hearing comments
such as OP's (and go into depression). Go watch First Reformed if you haven't
already.

~~~
dpark
> _I really want to scream a big FCK you to your face for saying that "No one
> wants to give up their own personal comfort or lifestyle for the sake of
> "the planet."". Can you understand that? You seem to have given up any hope
> in political change, but please, don't speak for other._

You expect a political solution but your immediate reaction to someone
expressing a differing opinion is overt hostility.

I don’t know how to say this politely. You’re not a good advocate for the
political process if you can’t calmly discuss the opposing viewpoint.

At no point did you provide evidence that a political solution is viable. You
just complained about others and explained how you’re an environmentalist
martyr. Most people don’t want to be martyrs.

~~~
rcMgD2BwE72F
That isn't my intention at all. English is not my first language so it might
not help but please bear with me.

I intentionally said "I really _want to_ scream" and not "Let me say" because
I certainly do not want to be hostile. I shared the point of view of the
person I responded to, so no, I really did not express hostility but an
invitation to understand that some people actually are giving up "their own
personal comfort or lifestyle for the sake of the plane".

>I don’t know how to say this politely.

Look, you're writing something very similar to my "I want to" with this "I
don't know but". I'm sure we both have good intentions.

> You’re not a good advocate for the political process if you can’t calmly
> discuss the opposing viewpoint.

I do not pretend to be a good advocate here. I'm trying to have someone
consider that the actions of others are sincere. That people are actually
fighting and giving up comfort (which the OP comment denied). I don't want to
complain because I'm well off myself (good job, very secured financially, etc)
but there are so many people who would not act if we keep denying the
possibility of change and insists in making other choices non-existent or
insincere. That would have be the case a younger me, that's why I'm quite
emotional. It's just my feeling and I understand that it may not be welcome.

>At no point did you provide evidence that a political solution is viable.

Again, that's not my point. I could comment on that, but I reacted to the
assumption that "No one wants to give up their own personal comfort or
lifestyle for the sake of the planet". This is a very bad starting point to
discuss this because the last decade of my life shows the contrary. I only
complain that stating the contrary is false (logically) and morally wrong (who
can speak for others about their intention?). Why do you think I'm a martyr? I
certainly don't feel like one (again, I live in Paris and have enough time and
resources to care not about my personal situation but climate change and poor
workers who can't bear taxes). Nor do you I want anyone to be a martyr because
I know we would have a violent regime change (probably not for the best) if
people start feeling like they would have to die to be heard.

~~~
drankula3
There's a saying that comes to mind when I read this post.. You judge yourself
based on intent. You judge others based on action.

~~~
Latteland
I'd say we can judge him or her based on both intent and action, they seem in
line with each other.

------
jakobegger
I don't feel that articles like that contribute to the discussion in a
meaningful way. Sure it's fun to point out that politicians are all hypocrits,
but it doesn't help anybody at all.

There are two possibilities:

a) Private Jets are an important source of pollution. Then we should complain
about private jets all the time, not just when we want to smear the people who
use them to travel to climate talks.

b) Or private Jets are not really that much of an issue on a global scale, and
we should focus on whatever is actually discussed at Davos, rather than
complain about how people get there.

The article makes no effort to quantify, or put into relation, the actual
impact of people travelling with private jets, so I really don't see what it
brings to the table, except triggering a bit of outrage here and there.

~~~
leetcrew
it's not pointless argument. a bunch of important people are getting together
to talk about possible solutions for climate change. such solutions will
probably involve significant sacrifices in our standard of living. the fact
that they took pretty much the most wasteful means of travel should suggest
something about who they expect to make these sacrifices.

spoiler: it's not them.

~~~
dingaling
Most wasteful?

The majority of bizjet trips are between airports that don't have direct
service. So alternative travel would involve connections with multiple take-
offs, which are much more polluting than sitting at cruising altitude.

~~~
leetcrew
> multiple take-offs, which are much more polluting than sitting at cruising
> altitude.

I highly doubt that non-direct flights on airliners pollute more _per
passenger_ than a direct flight on a small jet that isn't necessarily full.

------
DougN7
This is such a beautiful example. We all want change, but giving up modern
conveniences is so hard. We might mock the people and their private planes but
I don’t doubt someone would mock me for my cars, central air conditioning,
etc.

~~~
mattlondon
I thought to myself: "Someone who cared could probably have got a train from
most of Europe to Davos!"

Then I thought about the sort of people that go to these things, and how long
the train takes. They're oh so terribly important (sarcasm), that they simply
cannot afford the time lost by traveling in anything other than a jet.

And that I think is the problem - from the Davos-attendee right down to you
and I with our cars + central heating/air-con: we all want things to improve,
but we also all value (consciously or otherwise) our own
comfort/time/convenience more

"Well OF COURSE most people should take the train to Davos. Absolutely! Its
the climate friendly choice! I _had_ to take a jet though because I am very
busy."

~~~
Dreami
I think the problem is security. Here in Switzerland, there's demos in various
cities and also of course at Davos. If you would put them in trains, it would
be harder to do it safely.

(of course, why they even need so much security is another thing)

~~~
rcMgD2BwE72F
At some point, they'll have to be escorted by the military wherever they go,
as more and more people will get angry at their unwillingness to fight (if not
their contribution to) the ecological collapse.

I hope it isn't too late to escape this vicious cycle.

------
rhcom2
Also: "Just 90 companies caused two-thirds of man-made global warming
emissions"
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20/90-compa...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20/90-companies-
man-made-global-warming-emissions-climate-change)

Individual behavior obviously matters but it's a drop in the bucket compared
to corporate polluters.

~~~
organsnyder
Aren't the customers of those companies also culpable?

~~~
rthomas6
YES.

I really dislike the insinuation that all those companies could voluntarily
change their behavior and stay in business. There's no incentive for them to
eat the cost of that negative externality, and their competition would
immediately come along and take their customers by offering the same products
at a cheaper price. We are the ones buying the cheap crap. It's cheap, we want
it, so we buy it. Those companies might be enabling us, but if they didn't
provide it, another one would step in.

This is why regulation is so important vs. pure advocacy and technology
solutions. Consumers are buying things without paying for the harm that
product inflicts on the environment.

------
m52go
> There appears to be a trend towards larger aircraft, with expensive heavy
> jets the aircraft of choice

> This is partly due to the long distances travelled, he said, “but also
> possibly due to business rivals not wanting to be seen to be outdone by one
> another”

I don't think we can expect anything substantive coming of a meeting like
this.

Has anything ever?

~~~
dingaling
One part of his statement is fact ( long ranges necessitate large aircraft )
and the other is conjecture.

There was only one 747 in attendance, from UAE. Then some Boeing BBJs, one
Tu-204 and and then lots of Falcons / Gulfstreams / Globals.

If image was important then BBJs would have been the minimum.

------
misiti3780
If they really cared, the most environmentally friendly way to hold Davos
would be over video conference

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
If only we had some way of communicating across long distances...

~~~
mbreedlove
ah, yes, carrier pigeon!

------
mac01021
The World Economic Forum in Davos is not just about Climate. In fact most of
the topics discussed are not.

It is not clear from this article that most of the attendees are even
pretending to be concerned with global warming.

So, while this is certainly tragic, the act is not as hypocritical, nor as
obviously ironic, as The Guardian would like us to think.

------
jellicle
I guess we're going to do this every year now.

Like last year: if the politicians gathered at this conference agree and do
anything - literally anything at all - to combat climate change that they
wouldn't have done otherwise, the effect of their plane flights will be
dwarfed by whatever thing, no matter how tiny, they agreed to do.

"Leaders working on world hunger problem ate lunch, exacerbating problem"

"Leaders working on global clean water drank three pitchers of water"

"President says we need to reduce CO2 emissions, but attended Boy Scout
Jamboree where marshmallows were toasted"

All of this is "I am very intelligent" territory. [https://thenib.com/mister-
gotcha](https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha)

~~~
RcouF1uZ4gsC
> "Leaders working on world hunger problem ate lunch, exacerbating problem"

> "Leaders working on global clean water drank three pitchers of water"

In both of those scenarios, the goal is to make it possible so everybody can
do those things. The leaders working on world hunger, want everybody to be
able to eat lunch like them. The leaders working on global clean water want
everybody to be able to drink 3 pitchers of water without having to worry if
they will get sick.

The leaders at the climate conference are discussing policies that would
encourage/mandate that fewer people took plan trips, and that private jets
were more expensive to fly.

~~~
mikeash
The end goal for fighting climate change is to have everything running on
renewable energy so that we can all enjoy plane trips without screwing up the
planet.

------
tcarver
Only posting because it seems some people have not spotted why this story
resonated so much: it epitomises a certain view of Davos - the rich and
famous, meeting to discuss problems they imagine themselves disproportionately
able to address, seemingly oblivious to their own disproportionate role in
causing the problems in the first place (surely it's beyond debate that anyone
flying a private jet has a disproportionately large carbon footprint?).

------
NickM
This kind of finger pointing really misses the forest for the trees.

I know it's popular to hate on the global elite and jump all over their
hypocrisy at any opportunity, but we need to take a long, hand look at
ourselves for a minute. There are no headlines right now proclaiming outrage
over the number of people flying private jets to go on fancy vacations, but
tons of headlines about people flying jets to this climate talk. It's crazy
and irrational for us to scream about people using private jets for events
that are trying to help the world but then ignore all the selfish personal
uses of private jets that are constantly happening for more frivolous reasons.

The outcome of talks like these is tremendously important if we want to
address climate change; if allowing people to spend a little extra jet fuel
will help encourage better attendance and ensure the attendees feel refreshed
and sharp when they arrive, then that seems like an okay tradeoff to me. The
extra CO2 being emitted here really is a tiny drop in the bucket.

EDIT: Judging by the silent downvotes, I guess people would rather just cling
to their blind outrage than think critically about their own reactions to
these things. Disappointing.

------
slowmovintarget
That's because the Climate Talks aren't about the climate. 1500 private jets
flew to Davos so their passengers could ensure a good crisis doesn't "go to
waste."

------
makerofspoons
The solution should include a carbon tax or fee to make such behavior
uneconomical. Could Switzerland impose a carbon fee upon landing a private
aircraft at a Swiss airport?

~~~
lagadu
Why would Switzerland effectively offer a negative incentive towards people
holding conferences there? Are you advocating that they should make attending
climate conferences become more expensive and harder to attend?

~~~
makerofspoons
No, I'm proposing that they encourage more eco-friendly alternatives that also
make attending the conference cheaper such as telecommuting or using rail.

------
ykevinator
The people are ready, the conservatives don't recognize the problem.

------
mudil
Al Gore and Leonardo Di Caprio fly private jets all the time. Not sometimes,
but always and very often. This is equivalent of Mahatma Gandhi driving among
the people in the Rolls Royce to deliver his message!

~~~
ceejayoz
1\. No, it's not.

2\. "Vintage Rolls Royce which seated Mahatma Gandhi and Queen of England
fetches $705,300"
[http://luxurylaunches.com/transport/vintage_rolls_royce_whic...](http://luxurylaunches.com/transport/vintage_rolls_royce_which_seated_mahatma_gandhi_and_queen_of_england_fetches_705300.php)

~~~
mudil
Yes, it is. He was bare foot. Sure, he was seated in the RR with Queen, but
that was a special circumstance, most likely part of politicking, and not his
modus operandi. But for Al Gore and Leonardo, it’s their way of life.

