this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2024
822 points (92.9% liked)

Technology

59534 readers
3223 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
  • Elon Musk purchased shares of Twitter after unsuccessfully petitioning the CEO to remove a Twitter account tracking his private jet.
  • Musk's personal gripes played a key role in his $44 billion acquisition of Twitter.
  • Musk banned the account after promising not to, highlighting his prioritization of getting his way over free speech.

Archive link: https://archive.ph/ttBv9

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Joker@discuss.tchncs.de -3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

People with private jets often charter them out when they’re not using them. The best place for an airplane is in the air. Only bad things happen when you let it sit around on the ground all the time. It’s not much different than commercial planes that spend most of their time in the air.

Sure, a private jet will have more emissions than an Airbus, but it’s a marginal increase. It’s not like rich people with their planes are producing a million times more pollution that wouldn’t exist if they didn’t have a private jet. They’re still going to fly, at least for longer trips.

It’s easy to go down a rabbit hole with this line of reasoning. Who else is using less efficient aircraft or taking unnecessary flights? Are all those police helicopter flights necessary? What about people flying to go party on an island somewhere versus some more noble purpose? Or airlines with a half empty flight? Meanwhile, it’s the oil companies producing the vast majority of carbon emissions while we squabble over travel itineraries and choice of aircraft.

[–] Lilith_the_serpent@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

If elon didn't have a private jet and had to travel in a regular passenger plane, it would aboulutely make a difference I'm carbon emissions. Right now, we are seeing emissions from passenger planes AND private jets. Take away private jets and the passenger planes will still create the same emissions regardless. Your argument is that the addition of private jets are a "marginal increase" of emissions.

That makes no sense. Less planes = less emissions. Private jets + planes = more emissions. Just like, if most people took public transportation on the road. Busses + cars = more emissions than if there were no cars and only public transportation left. There would be less emissions if the wealthy traveled in a regular passenger plane like everyone else.

It's easy to go down a rabbit hole with that kind of reasoning.

The point is that one plane can transport a large amount of passengers in one trip, compared to, transporting the same amount of passengers in a private jet would take multiple trips. Transport more people with less fuel use. This is why public transportation is so important. It actually does make a difference. Elon just likes his toys and doesn't give a shit about the effect it has on the environment. That's why he's so focused on Mars.

This planet is doomed because of people like him, and he knows it. Otherwise, he would be investing his money into making the earth a better place instead of investing in trying to leave it.