Experts have predicted up to 1,500 individual private jets flights will be made in and out of this year’s Davos summit, despite hosting a series of talks on the dangers of man-made climate change.
The World Economic Forum (WEF)’s annual meeting of global leaders is taking place in the Swiss resort town this week, with David Attenborough attending to offer a stark assessment of global warming trends.
But the Air Charter Service (ACS), a company arranging flights around the world, has estimated there could be a record number of carbon-emitting private jet flights in and out of Davos for the duration of the event.
The previous high was recorded at the 2018 summit.
It is a simple case of 'do as we say, not as we do'.
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-various artists
Why can't we combine a certain amount of personal action with better government actions?
No one says we can't. The article doesn't say we can't.
What it does, however, is to fairly strongly pour scorn on the idea of giving advice to people as to how they can make some difference via their personal choices. I would agree that those are by no means a panacea, and that strong government policies in favour of large-scale renewable energy are vital as well. However, in Australia, for example, roof-top solar is starting to put downward pressure on the need for additional power stations...
I agree that reducing air traffic would help, but climate change conferences are just one of many, so it's a bit unfair to single them out. There should be a lot more virtual meetings and conferences - surely the technology for seamless virtual conferencing is mature by now.
I agree that reducing air traffic would help, but climate change conferences are just one of many, so it's a bit unfair to single them out. There should be a lot more virtual meetings and conferences - surely the technology for seamless virtual conferencing is mature by now.
I'm not talking about 'air traffic' (which would be a society problem) but about individuals going to a climate change conference via private jet.
It's like fighting for peace, or fucking for virginity.
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-various artists
One of the unexpected benefits of climate change mitigation will be the rebirth of the intercontinental Zeppelin. Sydney to London will take three weeks. One dresses for dinner, of course. There will be a smoking room adjacent to the dining area for the gentleman. Havanas all around, and your finest brandy, my good fellow! Anyone fancy a rubber?
laklak wrote:One of the unexpected benefits of climate change mitigation will be the rebirth of the intercontinental Zeppelin. Sydney to London will take three weeks. One dresses for dinner, of course. There will be a smoking room adjacent to the dining area for the gentleman. Havanas all around, and your finest brandy, my good fellow! Anyone fancy a rubber?
I agree that reducing air traffic would help, but climate change conferences are just one of many, so it's a bit unfair to single them out. There should be a lot more virtual meetings and conferences - surely the technology for seamless virtual conferencing is mature by now.
I'm not talking about 'air traffic' (which would be a society problem) but about individuals going to a climate change conference via private jet.
It's like fighting for peace, or fucking for virginity.
What part of "World Economic Forum (WEF)" is confusing you?
Those arguments aside, surely lots of organisations of various sorts (government, private or whatever) that hold international conferences or meet-ups should look very carefully at high-end video conferencing. Not only would it save on jet fuel, but surely it would be a lot less expensive for the organisations...
Those arguments aside, surely lots of organisations of various sorts (government, private or whatever) that hold international conferences or meet-ups should look very carefully at high-end video conferencing. Not only would it save on jet fuel, but surely it would be a lot less expensive for the organisations...
Absolutely. The only reason the WEF is discussing climate change at all is the effect it will have on the economy.
Also it is difficult to slip money under the table using video conferencing.
Governments are the only way to solve this. It's not going to happen via private enterprise. And it's not necessarily a case of giving the government money. They can just shift the subsidies from fossil fuels to renewables.
...except that the link you provided contain at leat one blatant lie:
In 2012 the top two corporations paying federal taxes in the US were ExxonMobil and Chevron CVX +2.15% paying a combined total of $45.2 billion.
According to Forbes these two companies together 'only' made $30billion in profit.
Explain how someone would pay a higher tax than they make in profit? ...and remain in business?
Because not all the taxes they pay are federal income taxes.
ExxonMobil for example, incurred about $1.22 in taxes to federal, state and local taxing authorities for every dollar of net earnings.
That being said, I think you may be right about that sentence. I'm trying to confirm it, but I don't think the $45.2 billion figure is correct. Good eye.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar
laklak wrote:One of the unexpected benefits of climate change mitigation will be the rebirth of the intercontinental Zeppelin. Sydney to London will take three weeks. One dresses for dinner, of course. There will be a smoking room adjacent to the dining area for the gentleman. Havanas all around, and your finest brandy, my good fellow! Anyone fancy a rubber?
I could get behind this
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar
...and remain in business? 
