World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
according to this wiki article, over its lifetime a plastic straw will release 1,46 grams of CO2, while a paper straw will release 1,38 grams of CO2. that’s a saving of 0,08 grams.
and according to this article, a private jet releases 4,9 kilograms of CO2 per mile.
so: assuming you are using one straw per day, a year of using paper straws instead of plastic straws offsets about 0,006 miles of one private jet, or a bit more than 10 meters.
that’s fun.
tbh, the real reason to use paper straws instead of plastic is that they’re much more biodegradable, not so much the CO2 use. we should use way less plastic in general, imo
and it bears mentioning that the CO2 released by private jets still pales in comparison to what the airline industry produces; the average global northerner’s overseas holiday is still very destructive for the environment (tho obviously not as much as a rich fuck using a private jet)
If you compute it per person I suspect a billionaire is probably producing (just due to flights) about 10000 to 50000 more than an average traveller (couple international flights a year).
To be honest the planet does not care how you compute it.
Quick google-fu said private jets are about 1,8% of the total airtravel pollution. If you want whats good for the earth, focus on the half empty and empty commercial flights that big airlines do because they want to keep their hangar places. That makes much bigger part of the overall pollution.
I say: let the rich fly, just make it so they pay enough taxes for it compencate for it.
Oh no I am fully on board with this. But it still boils to the same source of governments serving the interest of the rich rather than the remaining people. Airplane companies pushing agendas and asking for government incentives while governments say they really care about the planet but not making enough effort to make train travel cheaper (international per mile especially) than flying. Fucking hell they should incentivize the hell out of it so that it becomes cheap as chips and people take flights only for long distances. So yes commercial flights are definitely also a part of the problem.
The planet does not care about taxes either.
The reason per person footprint is important because we can't just turn off all pollution. We have to gradually reduce it.
You can't just say to your country "by the way, we just banned fossil fuels", that will just result in you dead and a pro-pollution guy being in charge of the country next day.
The way to reduce pollution is to get more output from the same input. That is, efficiency.
Private jets are incredibly inefficient and are used by an extremely low percentage of the population. There's no reason to keep that 1.8% just to satisfy 0.0001% of the population.
Just to walk you trough my reasoning.
Change needs money. That 1,8% can generates lots of money that can be used to fight pollution in other ways. We could easily rise the taxation and that 1,8% could turn in to 1,5% or something.
If we start to ban private jets conpletelly by changings laws, it will be long process and even if one country bans it there will always be poor countries or tax heavens that will find a way to enable it. It will turn in to a game of aviation wack-a-mole and the gran price of that work will be 1,8% reduce in emission.
On the other hand we could make bigger impact from commercial side while not losing tax revenue as much. Its hard to get real numbers but its likely ghost flights alone are close to same pollution as private jets, not to mention that average commercial flights has only 80% of the seats filled.
So my thinking in short is that any impact with banning private jets is dwarfed by anything done in the commercial side.
And im not saying private jets are good. Im against those. People just need to understand that they are very minor part of the aviation pollution.