Questions of social and economic class must be at the centre of our response to the climate crisis, to address the huge inequalities between the carbon footprints of the rich and poor and prevent a backlash against climate policies, the economist Thomas Piketty has said.

Regulations will be needed to outlaw goods and services that have unnecessarily high greenhouse gas emissions, such as private jets, outsized vehicles, and flights over short distances, he said in an interview with the Guardian.

Rich countries must also put in place progressive carbon taxes that take into account people’s incomes and how well they are able to reduce their emissions, as current policies usually fail to adjust for people’s real needs.

  • Treczoks@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    The problem is: There are nearly no private jets. The rich would be stupid to own their own planes for tax reasons. So the planes are usually officially owned by a charter company. That this very plane is only available for that customer - who coincidentally also pays “service frees” or whatever for all inspections, upgrades and checks - does not invalidate that it is technically “chartered”.

    Any flight done is a chartered flight, performed by a commercial entity.

    • Alteon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Then you write in laws that prevent that sort of exploitation. Start stamping out the loopsholes to address the problem.

      • PoisonedPrisonPanda@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Thats practically impossible.

        Nobody could execute or enforce such complex laws.

        Yet alone the string of events for other parts of legislation.

        Edit Im not against the proposed measure, I ghink it just has to be another route.

        Like permitting certain emission threshholds per person in transportation.

          • PoisonedPrisonPanda@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Confidently incorrect

            I must admit. Thanks for the link.

            While I am surprised that france is so active here I welcome the push for other countries as well.

            But as far as I read the other linked article about frances “ban” in detail it seems the regulation itself goes not very deep.

            And I am skeptic about the outcome. The talks about this regulation were more directed towards:" give the small people some bait…" and are only impacting 3 routes in france.

            But anyway, as its stated, its a small step into right direction.

            • fine_sandy_bottom@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah I’m skeptical as well

              If the assertion is;

              Nobody could execute or enforce such complex laws

              then a new law yet to be implemented is not evidence to the contrary.

              Just like tax laws, it’s extraordinarily difficult to legislate the behavior of very wealthy people because they have more resources with which to develop work arounds than the regulators have to restrict them.

    • ExFed@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Agreed.

      I feel like the “ban X” trend is extremely lazy. The real problem is that carbon emissions are an externality; the cost of emissions aren’t factored into the cost of doing business. It’s basic economics. Industry, commerce, and consumers have no reason to account for carbon emissions, and so the overwhelming systemic pressure is to continue business at usual.

      Carbon emissions aren’t “immoral” in the same sense that theft or murder are, but they absolutely impose an ecological cost. Outlawing carbon emissions is not only unreasonable and politically impossible, but I would also argue unethical. As much as we altruistically fight to find alternatives, it’s likely that several industries vital to our economy will have to continue to emit carbon. The least we can do is compensate society for the shared ecological cost.

    • tankplanker@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Motor yachts, speedboats, super yachts yeah, but not your average privately owned, normal sized sailboat. Average private sailboat sails majority of the time and uses a mix of solar/wind/hydro for electric, unlike that fucking monstrity of Bezos with its fucking chase ship and helicopters.

      • Alteon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        They would never register the yacht in the states then. It’s a good idea, and should happen, but the loopholes are there for them to exploit, and it needs to stop.

        • thbb@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Then a docking tax in domestic harbors matched to the carbon tax would seriously reduce the usage of those yachts.

  • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    We absolutely should, but it’s not going to make much of a difference overall.

    Transportation is 14% of ghg emissions

    Overall co2

    Aviation is 13% of that in the EU (I couldn’t link the US one, but it’s similar)

    EU transportation co2

    Private jets are about 0.2% of total aviation emissions.

    This absolutely should be done, but it’s not necessarily going to do a whole lot overall, just low hanging fruit.

    • Ready! Player 31@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s the same argument as banning private schools - if the rich have to use the same infrastructure as the rest of us, they’ve got less incentive to dismantle it.