Private jets, MegaYachts used to attend Climate Summit

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by vertical smile, Aug 2, 2019.

  1. vertical smile, Aug 2, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2019

    vertical smile macrumors 68040

    vertical smile

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2014
    #1
    This reminds me of Al Gore telling the little people to conserve resources and ride their bikes to work, while he uses a private jet to commute, and owns many mansions each using more energy in one month than the US average household uses in a year.

    If you are rich, then it is do as I say, not as I do.

    https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/google-summit-celebrities-climate-change



    If Google saved their money, and all the celebrities stayed home, would this have been a positive impact on the environment?

    What if they bought electric cars with all the money spent on fuel and the event cost, and raffled them off, wouldn't that of been money better spent?
     
  2. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
  3. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #3
    https://www.foxnews.com/entertainme...b5gGUxZOu_Ss91wjySqVOFn-wN4vAbuRzMSiVxOuKBTcI
    only the peons need to lower their carbon foot print..........
     
  4. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #4
    And that's still a drop in the ocean vs daily traffic in any major city alone.
     
  5. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
  6. Zenithal, Aug 2, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2019

    Zenithal macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #6
    Fun fact. They could easily take public transportation. However, often times, the board members of the companies they direct require private transport for the CEO or whomever.

    Tim Cook took over Apple in 2011 and the board forced him to travel by private jet in 2017, deeming it a security and safety risk for him to fly in any other method. Facebook spends $10M annually to fly Zuckerberg on a private jet and provide 24/7 security, likely armed, on his person, wife and child.
    --- Post Merged, Aug 2, 2019 ---
    Precisely. These smaller jets burn less fuel and fly higher and more efficient than a narrow or wide body craft. The last time I flew on a major airline, it spent over an hour taxing and stopping. About 13-14 years ago there was talk of towing planes to the runway with a hookup to run the APU (smaller turbine way way way in the back) for essentials and doing startups at the beginning of the runway to save fuel and emissions for large aircraft.

    Even I harp on recycling and being green, yet I don't eat hemp or bathe in silica gels or whatever it is some people think green thinking people do.
     
  7. vertical smile thread starter macrumors 68040

    vertical smile

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2014
    #7
    At a minimum, the optics of the situation isn't good.

    If the situation was really taken seriously, the money spent could have been use to actually make a difference, but in this case, it is just hypocritical.

    Yeah, I am sure there may have been a few people that attended that had no choice but to use a private jet, but I doubt most of them did, and I doubt there was a mega yacht requirement for travel by anyone involved.

    When it comes down to it, did this climate change summit accomplish anything productive? What was said or done that couldn't have been said or done via video conferencing? Or email? Well, besides the luxury spa treatments, golfing on the water-consuming courses, and a live Coldplay concert.

    Again, if Google was serious about a making a change, I don't think spending a exorbitant amount on entertaining the rich and elite, while the part guests use an huge amount of energy was the way to do it.

    It is a few hundred people at a party versus millions of people in a city.
     
  8. Zenithal macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #8
    Yeah, I'm sure Google could have rented a rundown ballroom somewhere and served Doritos and salsa on Dixie plates and cups.
     
  9. vertical smile thread starter macrumors 68040

    vertical smile

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2014
    #9
    Or maybe done something more productive.
     
  10. Zenithal macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #10
    Were you there to assess what was said and decided upon?
     
  11. vertical smile thread starter macrumors 68040

    vertical smile

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2014
    #11
    Were you?
     
  12. Zenithal macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #12
    No, I presented fact. You presented opinion. Important people, whether you think they are or not, require private transportation. It's because either their companies requires it, their insurance policies require it, family, etc.

    If you had a net worth of 20B for example. And your children were asked to attend. Would you let them use public transportation, especially if their surname is known by the public, knowing full well they have a high risk of being killed or kidnapped?
     
  13. JagdTiger macrumors 6502

    JagdTiger

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2017
    #13
    Yeah and if the rich and wealthy and celebrities sold their mansions and expensive cars and lived in trailers and used Saab’s the environment would be better off.
     
  14. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Location:
    Velvet Green
    #14
    Consumption by wealthy people is most certainly out of proportion to, well, anything. Seems like it has been this way for millennia. We should do something about those entitled leeches.
     
  15. lostngone, Aug 2, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2019

    lostngone macrumors 65816

    lostngone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Location:
    Anchorage
    #15
    Are you somehow surprised by this? What do you think the whole “carbon credit” scam is all about?
    It has ALWAYS been about rules, control and how to profit off others. They have the majority of the money and they are such an extremely small part of the population that they are exempt from any laws/plans they push.
     
  16. vertical smile thread starter macrumors 68040

    vertical smile

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2014
    #16
    I don't have an issue with wealthy people using private jets.

    I have an issue with the hypocrisy of the situation.

    Someone being important or not is very subjective.

    I am sure you state this with sarcasm, but you are right, the environment would probably be better off.

    Although, I am not expecting the rich and wealthy to do any of this. It is their money, they can have their expensive mansions, cars, and jets.

    My issue is with the hypocrisy of the situation.

    I refer back to this post:

    I care for the environment, and somewhat agree with Al Gore about conserving resources, but I do not like the hypocrisy that people like Al Gore, politicians, and celebrities display when it comes to environmental issues.

    I especially do not like when the hypocrites try to sway/push public policies in the name of the environment, but do so in a way that they are immune to changes that those policies create. This leads to the creation of a class-based society.

    For example, there is a push to dramatically increase taxes on fuel to curb climate change. These proposed taxes would be a flat increase and not progressive. So, if you have the means, you are basically immune to the impact of the increase taxes on fuel.

    Any type of government enforced fee, fine, or tax should be income-based in my opinion, and by having them flat-rated is like having the a government enforced class-based society.

    A non-environmental example that many people can relate to is the speeding cameras. I live in a state that has speeding camera. There is a $100 fine for a speeding violation, but no increase in insurance or losing driving privileges. Just a flat fee.

    If someone making $50k a year gets a few of these fines, it could have a significant negative impact on their finances, while a wealthy person could break the law with impunity, as many fines wouldn't affect them at all.

    I think the climate summit is just a reminder of how things are different for different classes of people.
     
  17. Zenithal, Aug 2, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2019

    Zenithal macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #17
    You also seem to have a severe comprehension problem. What or how do you expect them to be safe and still travel via public transport? Tele-****ing-portation?
    --- Post Merged, Aug 2, 2019 ---
    I don't. I don't see Zuckerburg as an important person. I don't see Jack Dorsey as important. Their companies' board members do. Plenty of people do. The President does.

    So why complain about it?

    And you yourself do what exactly to contribute to the good of the planet? If you don't care, as you claim, then you shouldn't care about the hypocrisy. Because caring about so-called hypocrisy out of the reach of these individuals is in fact caring.

    I care about the planet, too. I drive a gas guzzling V8. Does that make me a hypocrite, too, because I don't want to drive an EV which still pollutes when it comes to generation of electricity or a Prius?

    You drive an MR2, right? Going off of your avatar here. Older MR2s are known for burning oil. Isn't that hypocritical of you to judge others when you yourself are contaminating the air?
     
  18. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #18
    And we all know that you can build a 60' luxury racing yacht (out of fibreglass and carbon fibre) without releasing anything into the atmosphere......

    Sorry, but Greta Thunberg is an example of the sort of "climate theatre" that turns off ordinary people. She might think she's helping things, but she's not. Sixty foot racing sailboats are simply not a viable alternative for most people who need to travel between Europe and North America.

    Finding solutions to tackle climate change will take hard work, hard choices, and the willing cooperation of (literally) billions of people.

    Most of whom don't need to be lectured by precocious and self-righteous teenagers.
     
  19. Eraserhead, Aug 2, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2019

    Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #19
    At least she normally goes by train. At least she’s trying.
    --- Post Merged, Aug 2, 2019 ---
    The rich could live a carbon neutral lifestyle at home to be fair.
     
  20. vertical smile, Aug 2, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2019

    vertical smile thread starter macrumors 68040

    vertical smile

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2014
    #20
    They have to do what they have to do to keep themselves and their family safe. I am not sure where the disconnect is here.

    I do not care if people with the means use their private jet to fly themselves and their family anywhere they want.

    I care about the hypocrisy of the situation.

    You don't what?
    Then we agree on this, the importance of someone is subjective.
    Anyways, that is off topic and not really the point. I am sorry for bringing it up.


    Why does this matter?

    No, that alone doesn't make you a hypocrite at all.

    But, lets say you were actively trying to influence public policy to reduce the sales of gas guzzling V8s by instituting a eco-tax, and that tax was financially insignificant to you, then I would say that you were being hypocritical.

    I also drive a gas-guzzling V8. 11.3 MPG on average.

    I don't care about what?

    Yes, I own a SW20 Turbo.

    Are there any MR2s that are not older? As for the oil consumption, all ICE burn oil, especially ones with forced induction.

    Ironically, newer car as in ones in the past 5ish years tend to consume more oil than older ones, especially during the motor break-in period. This is due to a bunch of reasons, but one ironically being the use of ultra light weight motor oils to increase the fuel economy.

    That being said, my SW20 doesn't burn much oil, but lets just say it did for your next question.

    No.

    But, it would if I was trying to influence public policy banning the registration of automobiles with high oil consumption.

    Besides, I am not judging others for contaminating the air.

    I don't think I am the one that is having a severe comprehension problem.

    I mentioned it many times already:

    How about one more time......
    I do not care that rich people are spending money like rich people.
    I do not care that CEOs are protecting themselves and their family.
    I do not care that celebrities are using mega yachts.

    I care about the hypocrisy of the situation! I care about people trying to influence restrictive public policies that will not affect them due to their mean. I care about public policies that would dramatically increased the tax on fuel in a non-progressive way.

    Hopefully I was clear this time.
     
  21. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #21
    There are probably rich people with one (large) house that is carbon neutral who drive a Tesla use 100% green electricity and are vegan and who carbon offset their flights. Are they hypocrites?

    Because aside from the flights their carbon footprint would be pretty small.
     
  22. vertical smile thread starter macrumors 68040

    vertical smile

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2014
    #22
    I assume you mean someone that attended this climate summit, and not just some random rich person.

    Personally, I wouldn't think they are being a hypocrite based off of the information given.

    BTW, I really do not care if rich person has many homes, buys a Tesla just to set it on fire, owns a cattle ranch with farting steers that they harvest for meat, and uses their personal jet to check their mail.
    But...
    If that same rich person was lobbying politicians in DC to make the consumption of beef illegal with the penalty of a $100 fine per lbs of beef consumed, all while still consuming their own cows, then I would think the person is a hypocrite.
     
  23. Altis macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2013
    #23
    They would be if they aren't making sacrifices as they expect of others.

    Someone who can have a massive luxurious home and very high-end car, even if their footprint is not much above the average person, is not making a sacrifice in doing so.

    It isn't on the same level as the person showing up in the yacht that costs $2000 to fill, but expecting the working class to reduce their standard of living while yours remains incredibly high is still hypocritical in my view.
     
  24. vertical smile thread starter macrumors 68040

    vertical smile

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2014
    #24
    Yup, I agree.

    This is exactly what I was referring to in the first post.
     
  25. Zenithal, Aug 2, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2019

    Zenithal macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #25
    You care but also claim to not care. I think you're just being vocal about this to stand out. You keep saying hypocrite but then want to allow these people to do what they believe is safer for their life. Do you read what you post?
    --- Post Merged, Aug 2, 2019 ---
    You're a hypocrite here, too. You claim they have to do what they have to do yet still complain about them taking private jets. Even going on a public airliner, even a fuel efficient 787, will emit a ton of carbon dioxide compared to a bus ride. But you wouldn't expect these people to go on a bus ride, and you'd chastise them for hiring a chartered private luxury bus, too.

    I don't post with sarcasm.

    No you're not. You wanted to bring it up. You posted this thread just to stir the **** pot.
    --- Post Merged, Aug 2, 2019 ---
    You took issue with people for no reason while both understanding why they took a private jet or yacht, but also take issue regardless of whether or not their required safety is at stake. I guarantee you would do the same in their footsteps, even if security wasn't an issue.

    This already exists. It's why many car companies build out smaller cars with smaller engines so they can get enough credits to make gas guzzling and or high performance engines. It's nothing new, and it's legal in a lot of countries. Including ones with harsher eco policies than the USA.
     

Share This Page

80 August 2, 2019