Opinion Private Jets Should Be Illegal

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Link (Archive)

Private Jets Should Be Illegal​

Temperatures in the UK and across the world are breaking new records. With wildfires, droughts, and death tolls reaching into the thousands, the catastrophic impact of the climate crisis is here and clear for all to see.

Coupled with soaring energy and petrol prices, rampant inflation, declining real-terms wages, and a chronically underfunded and increasingly expensive transport system, the relationship between the way we travel, our wallets, and the impact on the planet have been at the forefront of this period of heightened public sensitivity and scrutiny. Direct action groups like Just Stop Oil have even targeted road infrastructure, briefly shutting down the M25 while calling for an end to new fossil fuel projects.

Pouring further (jet) fuel on to the fire of climate radicalism, last week Yard, a digital marketing agency, published a report based on the aggregate findings of “Celebrity Jets,” an automated tracker that points out the worst excesses of the A-listers by sharing their private jet flight data. From their CO2 emissions to their fuel costs and sometimes ludicrously short journey times, the data is laid out for scrutiny — and has sparked outrage and, sometimes, despair among the normal population, which is much more likely to bear the brunt of the climate crisis than those taking to the skies.

Around 80 percent of humanity has never taken a flight, while Kylie Jenner took five flights in a single week with an average flight time of less than twenty minutes, including one three-minute journey. One single journey managed to emit ten times the average annual footprint of someone from Uganda, where this week climate change has led to flash floods that have killed dozens and displaced thousands. Private jets in general are notoriously destructive for the environment, on average emitting up to fourteen times as much CO2 as commercial jets, themselves the second-highest polluting form of individual transport available. And despite the growing focus on climate change, private jet usage has actually crept upward since the pandemic, with 7 percent more flightsin 2021 than 2019.

The role of drastic inequality in worsening in the climate crisis is not itself news. Oxfam last year reported that the carbon emissions of the richest 1 percent globally are set to be thirty times the level compatible with the 1.5°C limit in 2030, while the carbon footprints of the poorest 50 percent are set to remain well below. Jet-setter celebrities like Taylor Swift, Floyd Mayweather, and Jay-Z — the three Yard report-toppers — are not just irresponsible individuals but symptoms of the rank inequality and grotesque overconsumption enabled and encouraged in the economic system under which we live.

The problem will worsen as private jets grow in size and a new cohort of ultra-rich lock themselves into this mode of transport, making their planet inexorably smaller and our planet unbearably hot. In the longer term things will likely go further as more billionaire demagogues like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos look to outer space rather than just the domestic sky to get their kicks, with emissions from a single billionaire spaceflight exceeding the lifetime emissions of someone in the poorest billion people on Earth.

In the wake of the report and the outcry it caused, featured names like Swift and Drake hit back. Drake, hilariously, defended his predilection for short-haul flights by arguing that his journeys weren’t wasteful as his plane was empty; Swift’s team argued that she simply loans out her private jet to other individuals, apparently exonerating her of responsibility.

What these responses show is that while understandable, climate shaming, the phenomenon that sees the ultrarich called out for their enormous emissions and green hypocrisy, seems doomed to follow the same flawed, conscience-focused path of parts of the liberal climate movement elsewhere. In the United States, for example, the stagnant Joe Biden regime has attempted to gently cajole the aviation industry to voluntarily reduce emissions by 2030, but this is nowhere near far enough. Finger-wagging directed at fossil fuel companies in the hope of shaming them into decarbonizing has repeatedly proved meaningless when weighed up against record profits.

Appealing to the better angels of human nature won’t cut it; only systemic change and a mass movement determined to deliver that change can really take us forward. That movement should push for direct regulation banning hyperpolluting private jet travel, a policy that was backed by Labour in 2019 and that should now be a demand of every climate action and socialist group.

Instituting that ban would be a step forward, proving a seriousness about tackling the obscene emissions of the rich that has so far been lacking from our global political landscape. Ultimately, however, grounding private jets is still not going to be enough without a modal shift toward low- and zero-carbon public transport, made universally accessible and free for all. This requires enormous green transport infrastructure projects to be delivered by the state and removed from the private market, placing the focus on people and the planet, not private profit. Without that, grounding private jets alone will be like swatting flies when a horde of locusts is bearing down on your door.
 
The rich don't need to have their private jets taken from them, they need to be killed.
 
I wish we'd go in the opposite direction. Private aviation is artificially expensive due to stupid insurance and FAA regulations. In the 1950s, a private propeller plane cost as much as a luxury car. Today, the EXACT SAME PLANE (literally exactly the same, they still use carburetors and leaded gas because that was the engine certified years ago) costs as much as a house. Private aviation used to be within reach for anyone in the upper middle-class, today it's only millionaires and above can afford it.

The same people who regulated planes into the ground want to regulate everything so only the rich can afford to do what we consider to be normal things today. They want to make cars, houses, and meat luxuries for "environmental" reasons so only the rich and well-connected can have them.

This.

Whenever the elite want to ban something, whether that be for environmental reasons (or for "safety" reasons, like banning guns, but I digress), that's because they want to monopolize them all for themselves.

Same reason why they want people to get electric cars, or to give it up entirely for public transportation: they know that electric cars are less efficient. You can't go on road trips with them, you can't use them like you would a pickup truck, etc. But they also want more people dependent on public transportation, because cars can take you where the rails can't or won't take you, and they don't like that.

Same reason why socialism always devolves into "state capitalism:" the revolutionaries/dictator always becomes the capitalist. Communists don't want to tear down a bad system, they simply envy the rich and powerful, and want to obtain what they have. Up to and including power over other peoples' lives.
 
Same reason why socialism always devolves into "state capitalism:" the revolutionaries/dictator always becomes the capitalist. Communists don't want to tear down a bad system, they simply envy the rich and powerful, and want to obtain what they have. Up to and including power over other peoples' lives.
Yep. Remember people, Lenin had several Rolls-Royce automobiles and Stalin absolutely adored Packards. Capitalism is bad, except for when it gives the Communist leaders a life of luxury.
 
Yep. Remember people, Lenin had several Rolls-Royce automobiles and Stalin absolutely adored Packards. Capitalism is bad, except for when it gives the Communist leaders a life of luxury.

Huh. Guess that also further destroys the narrative that a lot of leftists have, that Lenin was a well-meaning idealist, and Stalin undid his good work for his own selfish purposes.
 
Lenin was a well-meaning idealist
If he was a well-meaning idealist he would have been a Menshevik moderate or a Trudovik republican, not one of the Bolshevik extremists. He was also unsurprisingly part of that time period's equivalent of the laptop class. To quote from Wikipedia:
Born to an upper middle-class family in Simbirsk, Lenin embraced revolutionary socialist politics following his brother's 1887 execution. Expelled from Kazan Imperial University for participating in protests against the Russian Empire's Tsarist government, he devoted the following years to a law degree. He moved to Saint Petersburg in 1893 and became a senior Marxist activist. In 1897, he was arrested for sedition and exiled to Shushenskoye in Siberia for three years, where he married Nadezhda Krupskaya. After his exile, he moved to Western Europe, where he became a prominent theorist in the Marxist Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP). In 1903, he took a key role in the RSDLP ideological split, leading the Bolshevik faction against Julius Martov's Mensheviks. Following Russia's failed Revolution of 1905, he campaigned for the First World War to be transformed into a Europe-wide proletarian revolution, which, as a Marxist, he believed would cause the overthrow of capitalism and its replacement with socialism. After the 1917 February Revolution ousted the Tsar and established a Provisional Government, he returned to Russia to play a leading role in the October Revolution in which the Bolsheviks overthrew the new regime.
In case you're wondering why his brother was executed, it was for attempting to kill Tzar Alexander III, and he was both the leader of said assassination conspiracy group and the one who made the bombs they planned to use. Not exactly unjustified.
 
Last edited:
I don't think these retards realize that the same people who have enough money to buy a private jet can probably also afford the fees required to just register a business and license it as a business shuttle, or better yet declare it a private airline with public facing tickets priced so high that no pleb could even afford a molecule of the planes oxygen.
 
Haha, this idiot thinks that "you'll own nothing and be happy" is going to apply to billionaires. Any "ban" on private jets will be written in such a way as the private jets stay, but it becomes prohibitive for a sole proprietor of a farm to own a crop duster, forcing him to sell everything to a corporation.
 
I don't really care if people are flying around in private jets, but I absolutely think it should be illegal to fly around in a private jet if you are going to lecture people about how they need to give any kind of miniscule luxury up in order to save the environment.
 
They want it so you won’t be able to travel outside of regions they control unless for means they approve like racial or feminism conferences. Minorities who vote correctly will receive carbon credits thinking they are getting their reparations.
 
Wont happen, unless its "private jets are illegal except for the elite". Thats pretty much how they move around, they spend more time in private jets than cars.
 
Yep. Remember people, Lenin had several Rolls-Royce automobiles and Stalin absolutely adored Packards.
Stalin and his closest cronies had their Kremlin apartments and countryside dachas decked with the highest end US- made home appliances.
And Stalin (and many other commie leaers of the time) did have a private train
 
Back
Top Bottom