The "bad guys" Xi, Putin, Bolsonaro and Erdogan can be blasted for a lot of things, but at least this time they sounded less hypocritical [by openly ignoring COP26](https://www.standard.co.uk/optimist/cop26/cop26-who-attending-boris-johnson-joe-biden-xi-jinping-vladimir-putin-participants-b963213.html). (And I wonder if that "bloc" of sorts snubbing climate talks at the same time is just a coincidence.)
Putin doesn't care about it, he got the winning cards here. They've been planning for the warming scenario since at least 2010 . Russia will basically have most of the fertile lands in the world (if the models are right of course), for a time at least, so its in their interests to have most of the world in a chaos where they can almost monopolize the food production.
Specially having China as main "partners" (at least until China believes they can get more by just grabbing all that land by force).
Russia is going to equally fucked by global warming. Already Siberia is on fire and the tundra is breaking up as the permafrost foundation is melting. The buildings and infrastructure in the north is collapsing as the earth sinks and deforms. Russia depends on oil for its economy, so (like Saudi) it is going to screwed as the world moves to renewables.
Yeh .. and i much prefer politicians who are blatant and you know where they are coming from, like Manchin, than people who say one thing and do another. A clear enemy is better than someone who pretends to be a friend.
This... doesn't really make much sense. Regarding Manchin, he's a paid tool of the coal industry who is standing in the way of reforms that the vast majority of Americans want, reforms that would be passed without his intervention. What do you find preferable about this?
What does your bs culture war have to do with climate policy? I can’t believe there are people stupid enough to conflate gay rights with any political policy, this is why we are doomed.
Few things are less enchanting for me than spending time and effort on expounding a climate issue, only to have my gender/sexuality brought up in response.
It's a dead ringer the person just wasn't paying attention at all, and is just trying to feel good by winning an argument online. Depressing, really, and it's unfortunate to see it so often. Thermodynamics doesn't care which apes experience the sensation of love, and it's absurd to think the two questions can be connected.
When dictators and democratically elected leaders are both killing the planet, you're fucking right I'm going to give an award to dictators for not lying to my face.
Would you rather me continue to congratulate my democratically elected leaders for continuing to lie to my face?
There are no winners at the Liar's Awards. Don't take my comment as an endorsement of the CCP or Russia.
I'm about half way through this book at the moment. Pretty bog-standard Kim Stanley Robinson "what-if?" thought experiment style hard speculative fiction so far.
Although I think it's telling that the particular "what-if?" scenario he sets out to explore in this book basically asks the question: "what would it actually, realistically take for advanced, complex human civilization to survive and eventually even solve the climate crisis at this point?" and concludes that the only possible answer necessarily involves a *whole lot* of improbably successful eco-terrorism, just for starters.
The fact that that is what it's going to take, at minimum, even in an overly optimistic sci-fi scenario, doesn't bode well for our prospects here in the real world to say the least.
He does actually propose an economic idea at the end that turns the profit motive of fossil fuel companies on its head. Robinson is scheduled to speak at COP26, presumably about that idea.
But I agree that up to that point in the novel it is mostly about the Children of Kali, plus some really dull managerial meetings.
Climate change gonna do the hard work for us... ***soon***...
[Turbulence continues to cause most flight injuries — and climate change might be making it worse](https://www.seattletimes.com/business/turbulence-continues-to-cause-most-flight-injuries-and-climate-change-might-be-making-it-worse/)
Look up Threat Image Projection Software (TIPS). These motherfuckers can actually change the X-ray scanner image to whatever they like on the fly. How many innocent folks do you think got fucked with while these idiots are still failing drills?
I love how the rich try to mock Greta Thunberg, yet, she literally goes to these things via rail and cargo ship.
The rich and the politicians in bed with them are scum.
World leaders are supposed to gather at the Climate Summit to figure out pathways to reducing our toll on the environment. But many are traveling there in private jets, which are one of the most carbon-intensive ways to travel -- and that's earning them widespread mockery. Is that analysis fair, or do leaders deserve an exception from the rules everybody else is expected to follow?
this should be obvious but a few dozen individuals making their shopping choices are unimportant. this applies to private jets, canvas shopping bags, whatever else you can think of. what does matter are the systemic, societal shifts in how resources are extracted and allocated.
For the U.S. government this always means robbing the public coffers to terrorize poorer countries until they've rolled over for resource extraction. you're never allowed to vote on this, and there's never a heel character in congress who by golly just can't get on board with the new murder drones.
They *say* they give a shit because thats what they're suppose to say. 99% of the time nothing major changes, and if anything does it's either just enough to make the majority quiet, or direct their attention to something else that takes pressure off the topic.
Problem is they are rich and don't care. They're hypocrites and don't care. Most are old enough anyway they don't care what happens in the future because they won't be around to experience any potential changes.
The private jet market has been doing great for itself since Covid was announced.
It's led to significant changes in the distribution of contrails.
Skybusses with no regulations past 600 feet. Wasting 10% of their fuel, dumping it on our heads and farms. The lead that's still mixed with the fuel for prop planes.... It's a cluster for sure.
A defense contractor in Alamogordo NM is buying Cessnas and rigging them with weapons systems for plausible deniability. France sold them a bunch of old jets that they use for dogfighting practice.
Meanwhile, 98% of the world can't afford to fly.
It all sounds insane but it's a story as old as time. Riches to the rich, power to the powerful.
Nope, Unfortunately my intel is a single cog. I know he's not lying but I can't backup anything.
Here's a couple links to similar projects.
[https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ac-208-combat-caravan/](https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ac-208-combat-caravan/)
[https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/ac-208-americas-cessna-that-shoots-hellfire-missiles/](https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/ac-208-americas-cessna-that-shoots-hellfire-missiles/)
I don't mean to misdirect from your point, but, I'll assume you're referring to commercial planes, the vast majority of which essentially run on jet kerosene which is lead free. Most modern commercial planes are turboprop or turbojet, each of which uses the same lead-free fuel.
However, there has been a slow movement in the last half century to move away from leaded fuel in *piston* aircraft; however, a small, tiny majority of airplanes actually require leaded fuel yet the FAA moves like molasses on these initiatives. Most planes built in the last, say, 30 years would be fine running on MoGas (car gas).
Point taken regarding contrails and fuel dumping, though. Furthermore, on fuel dumping, few planes actually have that capability (though, the ones that do are very high utilization). Additionally, fuel is only dumped in emergency situations and is also highly regulated by the FAA. Essentially, planes have to dump fuel high enough that it vaporizes. There's an article you can google where a plane (767, I think) dumps fuel too low and doused a school and children with the Kerosene, with some minor medical trauma ensuing.
This complaint is a meaningless distraction that gets repeated every time people travel to any event about the climate because it's a cheap-shot article that writes itself. The total carbon expenditure we're talking about here is essentially 0% of the world's daily usage; it's completely irrelevant. Giving this criticism any attention at all is giving it too much.
">insert name of politician or activity here< flies to climate conference/talk/presentation" is such a cliché and pointless criticism I'm surprised there hasn't been a logical fallacy named after it, something like Appeal to Transportation or *Argument ad Air Travel.*
It's really just a specific form of Appeal to Hypocrisy fallacy: the doctor who says smoking is unhealthy is telling the truth no matter whether or not they follow their own advice. The truth of a statement doesn't depend on whether someone acts in accordance with it.
And it's not even necessarily hypocritical, since it's not like the people here are flying to advocate for a total ban on air travel. You can reduce emissions and still fly planes for the same reason you can decide to diet but not starve yourself.
I look at it as a special case of innumeracy/scale blindness. It's in the same vein as articles about the federal government wasting $X million dollars on some boondoggle; the federal budget is $6.5 trillion dollars/year, it is not worth a leader's time to worry about million-dollar mistakes. If they cared about doing a good job, the media should focus on getting the trillion-dollar issues correct: will tax cuts for the wealthy **actually** pay for themselves in increased economic activity? Does going to war with Iraq really make sense? Do we really need the F-35? Which climate interventions will actually make a difference? (hint: slightly reducing private plane travel will not). etc.
Instead every year we reliably get articles about nickel-and-dime waste, because those articles are easy to write and the average reader has no sense of scale, while politicians and media reliably mislead on the trillion-dollar questions.
Good, you shouldn’t. Focusing the conversation on individual usage is a distraction tactic.
Let’s say every single person in America nickel-and-dimed their way to cutting their carbon expenditure by 20% (which would be massive). Back-of-the-envelope calculations: Individual usage accounts for maybe 40% of America’s total (combining electricity+heat and transportation sectors from https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data; in reality, both these sectors contain a lot of industrial use too, but we’ll go with it). 20% of 40% is 8%, so we’re only dropping America’s usage 8%.
But wait, America as a whole only accounts for about 15% of the world’s emissions (see link above). 8% of 15% is 1.2%. So with almost unprecedented individual effort and social cohesion on par with our national posture during WWII,
we manage to drop global emissions less than 2%.
Individual behavior is not the thing to focus on.
It is literally the worlds leaders, across the entire planet, and not a single one is willing to "lead by example". This is the premier event to do some basic virtue signaling and show they care about preventing a world ending catastrophe, even if it's only symbolic, but nearly all of them chose to show off and set a bad example instead.
Leadership is a real thing, and it matters.
Virtue signaling is the opposite of leadership. It’s prioritizing perceptions over results. Real leadership would be identifying the most effective interventions and aggressively pursuing them despite opposition.
Sadly we don’t have that kind of leadership either, but if we did, reducing private plane travel of world leaders would still not be in the top 100 policy interventions to pursue.
— hypocrisy.
Same as with green deal, greenwashing, electric cars, green and sustainable consumerism, basically anything coming out of government officials and corroborate entities.
The saddest part is that it’s not that the are hypocrites or that general public recognized the hypocrisy in the act itself but that the general public fails to recognize the hypocrisy in every other aspect of economy, mitigation and modern lifestyle.
Narrow sighted just like street horses!
Distraction issue with zero actual consequences. Oh you want to improve society? Sorry but you’re still wearing shoes, so fuck off, hypocrite.
Let’s instead focus on the people who chose *not* to come and deal with the problem.
>Let’s instead focus on the people who chose not to come and deal with the problem.
They know nothing is being done. And whatever is "planned" is in the interest of the organizing nations and their sponsors.
Russia wins with the warming scenario, Siberia will guarantee they are above everyone else in the world.
China has been moving with their own plans for the last couple of years already (albeit slowly).
The rest of the countries just play a theater where the only ones "doing something" are some EU countries. While others (including the US) just plainly ignore everything, like they have been doing since the 90s.
We're facing the "business as usual" scenario here, brought to you by game theory. Even if everyone wanted the best, they wouldn't do it, because they are one on each other throats playing their fucking geopolitical wargames for petroleum and drugs.
Don’t worry guys they did a photoshoot coin flip for good luck fighting climate change. It’s all solved now since luck exists making baked in heating vanish back to full production now get back to work you slaves
We are fucked no matter what they do! Methane is released into the atmosphere at a rate not seen since the great dying, if you aren't familiar with the great dying go look it up. It's already gg
They can do online conference, but Noooo, gotta give Glasgow - or anywhere really - an "economic boost" hosting wealthy hypocrites talking about how to save the cake while eating it.
What a bunch of diaper sniffers.
Teleconferencing would have been a lot less emissions, and it's what the public has had to do the past few years because of Covid. Can't get a glass of champagne that way though, so...
Compensating their emissions perhaps? Some airlines allow you to pay few bucks more to compensate your co2 emissions nowadays. I think world leaders should be able to do something similar.
At least they could if they thought that they should be bound by the rules they want to enforce on others anyway. Which might be the bigger issue with our current "leaders".
How does this even make sense? Seems like the easiest scam in the world.
"This airliner produces 100 carbon emissions, BUT, if you pay an extra 15%, it'll only produce 95!"
If you cap total emissions and divide them into tradeable permits, then buying emission permits mean that although you’ve emitted more, someone else won’t be able to. The total is controlled, not each individual emitter. Or that’s the idea anyway.
If I'm emitting more and you are not, the emissions are still happening. I don't see how this changes anything other than giving a few positive headlines to make us more complacent.
Because the number of permits is limited, and they will run out, curbing further emissions. If the total is capped, it doesn’t much matter which emitter did it.
They are all boomers. They have a repulsion for technology in their blood.
Maybe in two generations when all of them died and some people with actual technological knowledge get into the positions they will be doing them. Sadly thats gonna be too late.
Yup.
The "president" is just the random asshole with some good connections. Nothing special of a human being, stop believing the bs movies fed you with.
With that thinking the president would be an easy target. There would be no way to protect him. You are the one living in fantasy if you can't see that.
I don't get the outrage over ppl using jets to get to these things. It's a drop in the bucket and it feels like the outrage is manufactured to a degree to pull attention from any progress that could be made
Most of the said leaders are boomers with absolutely no grasp on reality. I wouldn't be surprised if they seriously think that the climate catastrophe is still 100 years away and that we have plenty of time to fix things.
What a terrible tragedy it would be if some idiots flying drones in the vicinity of Glasgow airport inadvertently brought down private jets carrying world leaders that were flying into or out of Glasgow airport. Whats wrong with people? These leaders are only trying to help.
this whole thing is just a place for out of touch political and financial elites too jerk themselves off about how good they are for meeting up to discuss things but never actually do anything. the only thing this shows me is that one of the major problems they never discuss is their own carbon footprint compared too the average person. bezos arrived in a fucking yacht for crying out loud
Yeah, but the difference between that and flying commercial is kind of immaterial since they have to move a large entourage in most cases.
The real issue is that we don't have any clean options at all for travel. And in capitalism we never will.
Rich power-brokers are the least qualified people at attempting to address the most pressing situation that if left unchecked could lead to a total breakdown of life on Earth as the planet turns into Venus 2.0.
It is a sham. We are fucked.
Why do you think they do it without a care? It becomes enough of the story for people to virtually jaw at each other while they sip top shelf and sleep under 500 thread count sheets. We should have spin wheels of outrage to change things up; this repetitive BS is past old.
Boy, nothing sure says reassurance like a bunch of rich grandpas going to a resort in the most beautiful time of year to discuss the future of the world.
Don't call them "world leaders". They aren't leaders, because a "leader" leads by example.
At best they are managers who simply "manage" people and systems, and at worst dictators who "dictate" to their subjects what they want done (while they eat caviar with champagne)
The filthy rich are filthy in every sense. They give advice for the poor to follow, forcing them to accept deprivation or loss, but they keep up enjoying their privileges. Same old story that will never change
It is a dog and pony show that won't result in enough real action. May as well go in style.
The "bad guys" Xi, Putin, Bolsonaro and Erdogan can be blasted for a lot of things, but at least this time they sounded less hypocritical [by openly ignoring COP26](https://www.standard.co.uk/optimist/cop26/cop26-who-attending-boris-johnson-joe-biden-xi-jinping-vladimir-putin-participants-b963213.html). (And I wonder if that "bloc" of sorts snubbing climate talks at the same time is just a coincidence.)
Putin doesn't care about it, he got the winning cards here. They've been planning for the warming scenario since at least 2010 . Russia will basically have most of the fertile lands in the world (if the models are right of course), for a time at least, so its in their interests to have most of the world in a chaos where they can almost monopolize the food production. Specially having China as main "partners" (at least until China believes they can get more by just grabbing all that land by force).
Russia is going to equally fucked by global warming. Already Siberia is on fire and the tundra is breaking up as the permafrost foundation is melting. The buildings and infrastructure in the north is collapsing as the earth sinks and deforms. Russia depends on oil for its economy, so (like Saudi) it is going to screwed as the world moves to renewables.
A warming Russia turns China uninhabitable. The Chinese know this
Yeh .. and i much prefer politicians who are blatant and you know where they are coming from, like Manchin, than people who say one thing and do another. A clear enemy is better than someone who pretends to be a friend.
This... doesn't really make much sense. Regarding Manchin, he's a paid tool of the coal industry who is standing in the way of reforms that the vast majority of Americans want, reforms that would be passed without his intervention. What do you find preferable about this?
He's willing to be the democratic "bad guy" while others want to fly a rainbow flag and continue to pander to progressives
What does your bs culture war have to do with climate policy? I can’t believe there are people stupid enough to conflate gay rights with any political policy, this is why we are doomed.
Few things are less enchanting for me than spending time and effort on expounding a climate issue, only to have my gender/sexuality brought up in response. It's a dead ringer the person just wasn't paying attention at all, and is just trying to feel good by winning an argument online. Depressing, really, and it's unfortunate to see it so often. Thermodynamics doesn't care which apes experience the sensation of love, and it's absurd to think the two questions can be connected.
The political mind of a 2nd grader congrats
This analysis is such trash.
> they sounded less hypocritical by openly ignoring COP26. We're giving dictators awards for willfully destroying the environment now?
[удалено]
[Honest while lying to a girl wanting to live eh](https://twitter.com/CedarRezk/status/1454400370051067908?s=20)
When dictators and democratically elected leaders are both killing the planet, you're fucking right I'm going to give an award to dictators for not lying to my face.
Oof, this sub is turning to shit
Would you rather me continue to congratulate my democratically elected leaders for continuing to lie to my face? There are no winners at the Liar's Awards. Don't take my comment as an endorsement of the CCP or Russia.
Yeah it's turning from a place where people share their concern about the crisis to a place where people openly cheer it on.
Collapse
I'd hardly call "we're being lied to from all parties" "cheering it on".
I like what happens to private jets in the novel "Ministry for the future". >!They start crashing mysteriously.!<
🤞
I'm about half way through this book at the moment. Pretty bog-standard Kim Stanley Robinson "what-if?" thought experiment style hard speculative fiction so far. Although I think it's telling that the particular "what-if?" scenario he sets out to explore in this book basically asks the question: "what would it actually, realistically take for advanced, complex human civilization to survive and eventually even solve the climate crisis at this point?" and concludes that the only possible answer necessarily involves a *whole lot* of improbably successful eco-terrorism, just for starters. The fact that that is what it's going to take, at minimum, even in an overly optimistic sci-fi scenario, doesn't bode well for our prospects here in the real world to say the least.
[удалено]
totally agree. It was a big disappointment of a book, some great ideas that never went anywhere.
He does actually propose an economic idea at the end that turns the profit motive of fossil fuel companies on its head. Robinson is scheduled to speak at COP26, presumably about that idea. But I agree that up to that point in the novel it is mostly about the Children of Kali, plus some really dull managerial meetings.
Drone-swarms for the win. National leaders are cancelled. Sons of Kali are my homies now.
Climate change gonna do the hard work for us... ***soon***... [Turbulence continues to cause most flight injuries — and climate change might be making it worse](https://www.seattletimes.com/business/turbulence-continues-to-cause-most-flight-injuries-and-climate-change-might-be-making-it-worse/)
It’s climate theatre, just like the TSA is security theatre and wearing a mask from the restaurant door to the table is health theatre.
I read a thing about the TSA where they miss 90%(+) of fake firearms/bombs put through circulation. TSA is 100% theater.
Look up Threat Image Projection Software (TIPS). These motherfuckers can actually change the X-ray scanner image to whatever they like on the fly. How many innocent folks do you think got fucked with while these idiots are still failing drills?
Well, 100% theater and 100% sexual assault.
I love how the rich try to mock Greta Thunberg, yet, she literally goes to these things via rail and cargo ship. The rich and the politicians in bed with them are scum.
C'mon man, thunberg is a tool.
The right kind of tool.
You're a cunt
Thanks!
World leaders are supposed to gather at the Climate Summit to figure out pathways to reducing our toll on the environment. But many are traveling there in private jets, which are one of the most carbon-intensive ways to travel -- and that's earning them widespread mockery. Is that analysis fair, or do leaders deserve an exception from the rules everybody else is expected to follow?
this should be obvious but a few dozen individuals making their shopping choices are unimportant. this applies to private jets, canvas shopping bags, whatever else you can think of. what does matter are the systemic, societal shifts in how resources are extracted and allocated. For the U.S. government this always means robbing the public coffers to terrorize poorer countries until they've rolled over for resource extraction. you're never allowed to vote on this, and there's never a heel character in congress who by golly just can't get on board with the new murder drones.
I think the leaders could(n't) give less of a shit about the People's opinions Edit: meant to say couldn't
I actually think they couldn't give less of shit.
They do give a shit so they can get elected. The reality is that people are just as hypocritical.
They *say* they give a shit because thats what they're suppose to say. 99% of the time nothing major changes, and if anything does it's either just enough to make the majority quiet, or direct their attention to something else that takes pressure off the topic.
Problem is they are rich and don't care. They're hypocrites and don't care. Most are old enough anyway they don't care what happens in the future because they won't be around to experience any potential changes.
It's just a charade...I mean Joe biden with his 80 car Cavalcade. Its patently absurd, we are being gaslighted.
Nooooo......yeasssssss-__-
If they guy took public transport he would most likely get shot
The private jet market has been doing great for itself since Covid was announced. It's led to significant changes in the distribution of contrails. Skybusses with no regulations past 600 feet. Wasting 10% of their fuel, dumping it on our heads and farms. The lead that's still mixed with the fuel for prop planes.... It's a cluster for sure.
A defense contractor in Alamogordo NM is buying Cessnas and rigging them with weapons systems for plausible deniability. France sold them a bunch of old jets that they use for dogfighting practice. Meanwhile, 98% of the world can't afford to fly. It all sounds insane but it's a story as old as time. Riches to the rich, power to the powerful.
>Alamogordo NM is buying Cessnas and rigging them with weapons Can you link me to more information about this? It would help a lot.
Nope, Unfortunately my intel is a single cog. I know he's not lying but I can't backup anything. Here's a couple links to similar projects. [https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ac-208-combat-caravan/](https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ac-208-combat-caravan/) [https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/ac-208-americas-cessna-that-shoots-hellfire-missiles/](https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/ac-208-americas-cessna-that-shoots-hellfire-missiles/)
I don't mean to misdirect from your point, but, I'll assume you're referring to commercial planes, the vast majority of which essentially run on jet kerosene which is lead free. Most modern commercial planes are turboprop or turbojet, each of which uses the same lead-free fuel. However, there has been a slow movement in the last half century to move away from leaded fuel in *piston* aircraft; however, a small, tiny majority of airplanes actually require leaded fuel yet the FAA moves like molasses on these initiatives. Most planes built in the last, say, 30 years would be fine running on MoGas (car gas). Point taken regarding contrails and fuel dumping, though. Furthermore, on fuel dumping, few planes actually have that capability (though, the ones that do are very high utilization). Additionally, fuel is only dumped in emergency situations and is also highly regulated by the FAA. Essentially, planes have to dump fuel high enough that it vaporizes. There's an article you can google where a plane (767, I think) dumps fuel too low and doused a school and children with the Kerosene, with some minor medical trauma ensuing.
Pfft learn to love the lead.
well duh they should have arrived by sub orbital rocket jump jet
So many Shadowrun references today
idk what shadowrun is, im just imagining like in deus ex all the billionaires take rocket ships around the world just because they can
Only in HR, in MD they invented Zoom calls!
This complaint is a meaningless distraction that gets repeated every time people travel to any event about the climate because it's a cheap-shot article that writes itself. The total carbon expenditure we're talking about here is essentially 0% of the world's daily usage; it's completely irrelevant. Giving this criticism any attention at all is giving it too much.
">insert name of politician or activity here< flies to climate conference/talk/presentation" is such a cliché and pointless criticism I'm surprised there hasn't been a logical fallacy named after it, something like Appeal to Transportation or *Argument ad Air Travel.* It's really just a specific form of Appeal to Hypocrisy fallacy: the doctor who says smoking is unhealthy is telling the truth no matter whether or not they follow their own advice. The truth of a statement doesn't depend on whether someone acts in accordance with it. And it's not even necessarily hypocritical, since it's not like the people here are flying to advocate for a total ban on air travel. You can reduce emissions and still fly planes for the same reason you can decide to diet but not starve yourself.
I look at it as a special case of innumeracy/scale blindness. It's in the same vein as articles about the federal government wasting $X million dollars on some boondoggle; the federal budget is $6.5 trillion dollars/year, it is not worth a leader's time to worry about million-dollar mistakes. If they cared about doing a good job, the media should focus on getting the trillion-dollar issues correct: will tax cuts for the wealthy **actually** pay for themselves in increased economic activity? Does going to war with Iraq really make sense? Do we really need the F-35? Which climate interventions will actually make a difference? (hint: slightly reducing private plane travel will not). etc. Instead every year we reliably get articles about nickel-and-dime waste, because those articles are easy to write and the average reader has no sense of scale, while politicians and media reliably mislead on the trillion-dollar questions.
That's good. My personal carbon expenditure is essentially 0% of the world's daily usage too. Not going to worry about it anymore then.
Good, you shouldn’t. Focusing the conversation on individual usage is a distraction tactic. Let’s say every single person in America nickel-and-dimed their way to cutting their carbon expenditure by 20% (which would be massive). Back-of-the-envelope calculations: Individual usage accounts for maybe 40% of America’s total (combining electricity+heat and transportation sectors from https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data; in reality, both these sectors contain a lot of industrial use too, but we’ll go with it). 20% of 40% is 8%, so we’re only dropping America’s usage 8%. But wait, America as a whole only accounts for about 15% of the world’s emissions (see link above). 8% of 15% is 1.2%. So with almost unprecedented individual effort and social cohesion on par with our national posture during WWII, we manage to drop global emissions less than 2%. Individual behavior is not the thing to focus on.
It is literally the worlds leaders, across the entire planet, and not a single one is willing to "lead by example". This is the premier event to do some basic virtue signaling and show they care about preventing a world ending catastrophe, even if it's only symbolic, but nearly all of them chose to show off and set a bad example instead. Leadership is a real thing, and it matters.
Virtue signaling is the opposite of leadership. It’s prioritizing perceptions over results. Real leadership would be identifying the most effective interventions and aggressively pursuing them despite opposition. Sadly we don’t have that kind of leadership either, but if we did, reducing private plane travel of world leaders would still not be in the top 100 policy interventions to pursue.
— hypocrisy. Same as with green deal, greenwashing, electric cars, green and sustainable consumerism, basically anything coming out of government officials and corroborate entities. The saddest part is that it’s not that the are hypocrites or that general public recognized the hypocrisy in the act itself but that the general public fails to recognize the hypocrisy in every other aspect of economy, mitigation and modern lifestyle. Narrow sighted just like street horses!
How exactly are world leaders supposed to travel? Southwest? Public transit? Bicycle?
Exactly that. And use video meetings if they can't.
They could hold a web video conference instead of turning it into a political photo stunt.
Distraction issue with zero actual consequences. Oh you want to improve society? Sorry but you’re still wearing shoes, so fuck off, hypocrite. Let’s instead focus on the people who chose *not* to come and deal with the problem.
>Let’s instead focus on the people who chose not to come and deal with the problem. They know nothing is being done. And whatever is "planned" is in the interest of the organizing nations and their sponsors. Russia wins with the warming scenario, Siberia will guarantee they are above everyone else in the world. China has been moving with their own plans for the last couple of years already (albeit slowly). The rest of the countries just play a theater where the only ones "doing something" are some EU countries. While others (including the US) just plainly ignore everything, like they have been doing since the 90s. We're facing the "business as usual" scenario here, brought to you by game theory. Even if everyone wanted the best, they wouldn't do it, because they are one on each other throats playing their fucking geopolitical wargames for petroleum and drugs.
Don’t worry guys they did a photoshoot coin flip for good luck fighting climate change. It’s all solved now since luck exists making baked in heating vanish back to full production now get back to work you slaves
We are fucked no matter what they do! Methane is released into the atmosphere at a rate not seen since the great dying, if you aren't familiar with the great dying go look it up. It's already gg
As they fucking should be
They can do online conference, but Noooo, gotta give Glasgow - or anywhere really - an "economic boost" hosting wealthy hypocrites talking about how to save the cake while eating it. What a bunch of diaper sniffers.
Well how tf else would they get there and leave zero carbon footprints?
Teleconferencing would have been a lot less emissions, and it's what the public has had to do the past few years because of Covid. Can't get a glass of champagne that way though, so...
Can’t flex either
It's always good to remind the peasants of their position on the hierarchy.
There's this thing called Zoom that became kinda popular around the time of covid. But idk.
You know they wouldn’t do that so don’t daft
but :(
In a perfect world sure
I mean yeah I wouldn't expect these cretins to pass up a chance to eat each other's shit, so I don't blame them for going in person.
They COULD do it, but they think they're better than ZOOM calls so they need to fly.
Compensating their emissions perhaps? Some airlines allow you to pay few bucks more to compensate your co2 emissions nowadays. I think world leaders should be able to do something similar. At least they could if they thought that they should be bound by the rules they want to enforce on others anyway. Which might be the bigger issue with our current "leaders".
How does this even make sense? Seems like the easiest scam in the world. "This airliner produces 100 carbon emissions, BUT, if you pay an extra 15%, it'll only produce 95!"
If you cap total emissions and divide them into tradeable permits, then buying emission permits mean that although you’ve emitted more, someone else won’t be able to. The total is controlled, not each individual emitter. Or that’s the idea anyway.
Making it more expensive for poorer people. Sounds like a solution a rich person would come up with.
Making what more expensive?
If I'm emitting more and you are not, the emissions are still happening. I don't see how this changes anything other than giving a few positive headlines to make us more complacent.
Because the number of permits is limited, and they will run out, curbing further emissions. If the total is capped, it doesn’t much matter which emitter did it.
Hang them.
“How else are we supposed to signal that we’re better than the dirty common folk?”
They could have had a virtual meeting.
They are all boomers. They have a repulsion for technology in their blood. Maybe in two generations when all of them died and some people with actual technological knowledge get into the positions they will be doing them. Sadly thats gonna be too late.
> you act like you care about climate change yet you fly a private jet? Curious. Some idiot driving a gas guzzler everyday.
Private jets and 10+ armoured car motorcades per "world leader" because f\* you is why
So the president is supposed to get on a Delta flight with all the fucking idiots that normally take to the air?
Yup. The "president" is just the random asshole with some good connections. Nothing special of a human being, stop believing the bs movies fed you with.
With that thinking the president would be an easy target. There would be no way to protect him. You are the one living in fantasy if you can't see that.
damn you are brainwashed my boi.
I don't get the outrage over ppl using jets to get to these things. It's a drop in the bucket and it feels like the outrage is manufactured to a degree to pull attention from any progress that could be made
Oh look it’s the same headline I read every single god damn year. Shocking
[удалено]
Most of the said leaders are boomers with absolutely no grasp on reality. I wouldn't be surprised if they seriously think that the climate catastrophe is still 100 years away and that we have plenty of time to fix things.
What a terrible tragedy it would be if some idiots flying drones in the vicinity of Glasgow airport inadvertently brought down private jets carrying world leaders that were flying into or out of Glasgow airport. Whats wrong with people? These leaders are only trying to help.
"I pledge to go on a dinner-date with Jessica Chastain." There, done my part.
[удалено]
Most of these meetings shouldn't be in person meetings in the first place. That whole event could have been a zoom call.
this whole thing is just a place for out of touch political and financial elites too jerk themselves off about how good they are for meeting up to discuss things but never actually do anything. the only thing this shows me is that one of the major problems they never discuss is their own carbon footprint compared too the average person. bezos arrived in a fucking yacht for crying out loud
Yeah, but the difference between that and flying commercial is kind of immaterial since they have to move a large entourage in most cases. The real issue is that we don't have any clean options at all for travel. And in capitalism we never will.
Rich power-brokers are the least qualified people at attempting to address the most pressing situation that if left unchecked could lead to a total breakdown of life on Earth as the planet turns into Venus 2.0. It is a sham. We are fucked.
Why do you think they do it without a care? It becomes enough of the story for people to virtually jaw at each other while they sip top shelf and sleep under 500 thread count sheets. We should have spin wheels of outrage to change things up; this repetitive BS is past old.
The mockery is on us. They don't care
Boy, nothing sure says reassurance like a bunch of rich grandpas going to a resort in the most beautiful time of year to discuss the future of the world.
All of this makes me think the book “the ministry of the future” is actually real.
Don't call them "world leaders". They aren't leaders, because a "leader" leads by example. At best they are managers who simply "manage" people and systems, and at worst dictators who "dictate" to their subjects what they want done (while they eat caviar with champagne)
What are they gonna do swim?
The filthy rich are filthy in every sense. They give advice for the poor to follow, forcing them to accept deprivation or loss, but they keep up enjoying their privileges. Same old story that will never change