網(wǎng)民討論：是時(shí)候禁止私人飛機(jī)了——或者至少對(duì)它們征以重稅
It’s time to ban private jets – or at least tax them to the ground
譯文簡(jiǎn)介
上周關(guān)于“名人們的私人噴氣機(jī)”使用的報(bào)告清楚地表明，富豪們是多么隨意地將碳排放到大氣中。我們應(yīng)該讓他們的私人飛機(jī)永遠(yuǎn)離開天空。
正文翻譯
It’s time to ban private jets – or at least tax them to the ground
ByBen Davies
08.04.2022
Last week's report into celebrity jet use made clear just how casually the rich spew carbon into the atmosphere. We should get their private planes out of the skies for good.
是時(shí)候禁止私人飛機(jī)了——或者至少對(duì)它們征以重稅
2022年8月4日
作者：本·戴維斯
上周關(guān)于“名人們的私人噴氣機(jī)”使用的報(bào)告清楚地表明，富豪們是多么隨意地將碳排放到大氣中。我們應(yīng)該讓他們的私人飛機(jī)永遠(yuǎn)離開天空。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://nxnpts.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
Last week digital marketing agency Yard 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. (Jupiterimages / Getty Images)
上周，數(shù)字營(yíng)銷機(jī)構(gòu) Yard 發(fā)布了一份基于“名人們的私人噴氣機(jī)”綜合調(diào)查結(jié)果的報(bào)告，這是一個(gè)自動(dòng)跟蹤器，通過(guò)分享他們的私人飛機(jī)飛行數(shù)據(jù)來(lái)指出這些一線大A們最嚴(yán)重的過(guò)度（污染）行為。
上周，數(shù)字營(yíng)銷機(jī)構(gòu) Yard 發(fā)布了一份基于“名人們的私人噴氣機(jī)”綜合調(diào)查結(jié)果的報(bào)告，這是一個(gè)自動(dòng)跟蹤器，通過(guò)分享他們的私人飛機(jī)飛行數(shù)據(jù)來(lái)指出這些一線大A們最嚴(yán)重的過(guò)度（污染）行為。
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.
英國(guó)和世界各地的氣溫正在打破新紀(jì)錄。隨著野火、干旱和死亡人數(shù)達(dá)到數(shù)千人，氣候危機(jī)的災(zāi)難性影響已經(jīng)在這里出現(xiàn)，所有人都清楚地看到了。
再加上能源和汽油價(jià)格飆升、通貨膨脹猖獗、實(shí)際工資下降，以及長(zhǎng)期陷于資金不足和日益昂貴的公共交通系統(tǒng)，我們的旅行方式、我們的錢包和對(duì)地球的影響之間的關(guān)系一直處于最前沿在這個(gè)公眾高度敏感和審查的時(shí)期?！巴Ｖ故褂檬汀钡拳h(huán)保直接行動(dòng)組織甚至針對(duì)道路基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施，短暫地癱瘓了M25高速公路，并呼吁停止新的化石燃料項(xiàng)目。
上周，數(shù)字營(yíng)銷機(jī)構(gòu) Yard 進(jìn)一步向（私人噴氣式飛機(jī)）使用的化石燃料傾注了氣候激進(jìn)主義之火，它發(fā)布了一份基于“名人們的私人噴氣機(jī)”綜合調(diào)查結(jié)果的報(bào)告，通過(guò)分享他們的私人飛機(jī)航班數(shù)據(jù)，該自動(dòng)跟蹤器指出了一線大A人物們，從他們的二氧化碳排放量到燃料成本，有時(shí)甚至是荒謬的短途旅行時(shí)間，這些數(shù)據(jù)都經(jīng)過(guò)了仔細(xì)審查——并在普通人群中引發(fā)了憤怒、有時(shí)還是絕望的情緒，相比這些飛在天空中的人，普通人群體更有可能首當(dāng)其沖地承受氣候危機(jī)（帶來(lái)的惡果）。
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.
英國(guó)和世界各地的氣溫正在打破新紀(jì)錄。隨著野火、干旱和死亡人數(shù)達(dá)到數(shù)千人，氣候危機(jī)的災(zāi)難性影響已經(jīng)在這里出現(xiàn)，所有人都清楚地看到了。
再加上能源和汽油價(jià)格飆升、通貨膨脹猖獗、實(shí)際工資下降，以及長(zhǎng)期陷于資金不足和日益昂貴的公共交通系統(tǒng)，我們的旅行方式、我們的錢包和對(duì)地球的影響之間的關(guān)系一直處于最前沿在這個(gè)公眾高度敏感和審查的時(shí)期?！巴Ｖ故褂檬汀钡拳h(huán)保直接行動(dòng)組織甚至針對(duì)道路基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施，短暫地癱瘓了M25高速公路，并呼吁停止新的化石燃料項(xiàng)目。
上周，數(shù)字營(yíng)銷機(jī)構(gòu) Yard 進(jìn)一步向（私人噴氣式飛機(jī)）使用的化石燃料傾注了氣候激進(jìn)主義之火，它發(fā)布了一份基于“名人們的私人噴氣機(jī)”綜合調(diào)查結(jié)果的報(bào)告，通過(guò)分享他們的私人飛機(jī)航班數(shù)據(jù)，該自動(dòng)跟蹤器指出了一線大A人物們，從他們的二氧化碳排放量到燃料成本，有時(shí)甚至是荒謬的短途旅行時(shí)間，這些數(shù)據(jù)都經(jīng)過(guò)了仔細(xì)審查——并在普通人群中引發(fā)了憤怒、有時(shí)還是絕望的情緒，相比這些飛在天空中的人，普通人群體更有可能首當(dāng)其沖地承受氣候危機(jī)（帶來(lái)的惡果）。
Around eighty 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 seven percent more flights in 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 one percent globally are set to be thirty times the level compatible the 1.5°C limit in 2030, while the carbon footprints of the poorest fifty percent are set to remain well below. Jet-setter celebrities like of 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.
人類中大約有80%從未乘坐過(guò)飛行航班，而凱莉·詹納 (卡戴珊姐妹排名第三的、最年輕的成員) 一周內(nèi)乘坐了五次（私人飛機(jī)）航班，平均飛行時(shí)間不到二十分鐘，其中包括一次三分鐘的旅程，她一次旅行的排放量是烏干達(dá)人平均每年碳排放足跡的十倍。本周氣候變化導(dǎo)致山洪暴發(fā)，造成了數(shù)十人死亡，數(shù)千人流離失所。一般來(lái)說(shuō)，私人飛機(jī)對(duì)環(huán)境的破壞性是出了名的，平均排放的二氧化碳是商用飛機(jī)的 14 倍，這種交通方式是交通工具污染排放中居第二高的。盡管人們?cè)絹?lái)越關(guān)注氣候變化，但自疫情大流行以來(lái)，私人飛機(jī)的使用量實(shí)際上還在上升，2021 年的航班數(shù)量比2019年增加了 7%。
極端不平等在氣候危機(jī)惡化中的作用本身并不是新聞。樂施會(huì)去年報(bào)告稱，全球 1% 最富有的人的碳排放量將達(dá)到在2030年將氣溫升幅控制在1.5°攝氏度所需的限制水平的30 倍，而最貧窮的50%人類的碳足跡仍將遠(yuǎn)低于此水平。泰勒·斯威夫特、弗洛伊德·梅威瑟和杰伊·Z等私人噴氣式飛機(jī)著名人物——這三位 Yard 報(bào)告中的頭號(hào)人物——不僅是不負(fù)責(zé)任的人，而且在我們生活的經(jīng)濟(jì)體系中鼓勵(lì)和加劇了不平等的等級(jí)和怪誕的過(guò)度消費(fèi)的癥狀.
隨著私人飛機(jī)規(guī)模的擴(kuò)大以及新的超級(jí)富豪群體將自己鎖定在這種交通方式中，這個(gè)問(wèn)題將變得更加嚴(yán)重，使他們的星球變得無(wú)情地變小，而令我們的星球變得難以忍受。從長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)來(lái)看，隨著像埃隆·馬斯克和杰夫·貝索斯這樣的億萬(wàn)富翁煽動(dòng)者將目光投向外太空而不僅僅是地球上的天空，事情可能會(huì)更進(jìn)一步影響到地球上的幾十億人口。
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 one percent globally are set to be thirty times the level compatible the 1.5°C limit in 2030, while the carbon footprints of the poorest fifty percent are set to remain well below. Jet-setter celebrities like of 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.
人類中大約有80%從未乘坐過(guò)飛行航班，而凱莉·詹納 (卡戴珊姐妹排名第三的、最年輕的成員) 一周內(nèi)乘坐了五次（私人飛機(jī)）航班，平均飛行時(shí)間不到二十分鐘，其中包括一次三分鐘的旅程，她一次旅行的排放量是烏干達(dá)人平均每年碳排放足跡的十倍。本周氣候變化導(dǎo)致山洪暴發(fā)，造成了數(shù)十人死亡，數(shù)千人流離失所。一般來(lái)說(shuō)，私人飛機(jī)對(duì)環(huán)境的破壞性是出了名的，平均排放的二氧化碳是商用飛機(jī)的 14 倍，這種交通方式是交通工具污染排放中居第二高的。盡管人們?cè)絹?lái)越關(guān)注氣候變化，但自疫情大流行以來(lái)，私人飛機(jī)的使用量實(shí)際上還在上升，2021 年的航班數(shù)量比2019年增加了 7%。
極端不平等在氣候危機(jī)惡化中的作用本身并不是新聞。樂施會(huì)去年報(bào)告稱，全球 1% 最富有的人的碳排放量將達(dá)到在2030年將氣溫升幅控制在1.5°攝氏度所需的限制水平的30 倍，而最貧窮的50%人類的碳足跡仍將遠(yuǎn)低于此水平。泰勒·斯威夫特、弗洛伊德·梅威瑟和杰伊·Z等私人噴氣式飛機(jī)著名人物——這三位 Yard 報(bào)告中的頭號(hào)人物——不僅是不負(fù)責(zé)任的人，而且在我們生活的經(jīng)濟(jì)體系中鼓勵(lì)和加劇了不平等的等級(jí)和怪誕的過(guò)度消費(fèi)的癥狀.
隨著私人飛機(jī)規(guī)模的擴(kuò)大以及新的超級(jí)富豪群體將自己鎖定在這種交通方式中，這個(gè)問(wèn)題將變得更加嚴(yán)重，使他們的星球變得無(wú)情地變小，而令我們的星球變得難以忍受。從長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)來(lái)看，隨著像埃隆·馬斯克和杰夫·貝索斯這樣的億萬(wàn)富翁煽動(dòng)者將目光投向外太空而不僅僅是地球上的天空，事情可能會(huì)更進(jìn)一步影響到地球上的幾十億人口。
In the wake of the report and the outcry it caused, featured names like Taylor 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 ultra-rich 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 US, for example, the stagnant 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 decarbonising 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 hyper-polluting private jet travel, a policy which was backed by Labour in 2019 and which should now be a demand of every climate action and socialist group.
在該報(bào)道及其引起的強(qiáng)烈抗議之后，泰勒·斯威夫特和德雷克等名人進(jìn)行了回?fù)?。德雷克為他?duì)短途航班的偏愛辯護(hù)，他辯稱他的旅程并不浪費(fèi)，因?yàn)樗娘w機(jī)是空的，這很有趣。斯威夫特的團(tuán)隊(duì)則辯稱，她只是將她的私人飛機(jī)借給其他人，顯然是在試圖免除自己的責(zé)任。
這些反應(yīng)表明，盡管可以理解，看到超級(jí)富豪因其巨大的污染排放和虛偽的環(huán)保呼吁而受到羞辱的現(xiàn)象，似乎注定要沿著其他地方氣候運(yùn)動(dòng)的有缺陷的、以良心為中心的老路走下去。 例如，在美國(guó)，停滯不前的拜登政府試圖溫和地勸說(shuō)航空企業(yè)到 2030 年自愿減少排放量，但這遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不夠。當(dāng)與創(chuàng)紀(jì)錄的利潤(rùn)相權(quán)衡時(shí)，（環(huán)保人士）針對(duì)化石燃料公司的指手畫腳，希望以此羞辱迫使它們自己進(jìn)行脫碳行動(dòng)，這已經(jīng)一再被證明是毫無(wú)意義的。
訴諸人性中更好的天使并不能解決問(wèn)題；只有系統(tǒng)性變革和決心實(shí)現(xiàn)這種變革的群眾運(yùn)動(dòng)才能真正推動(dòng)我們前進(jìn)。該運(yùn)動(dòng)應(yīng)該推動(dòng)直接監(jiān)管禁止高污染私人飛機(jī)旅行的政策，這項(xiàng)政策在 2019 年曾得到過(guò)工黨的支持，現(xiàn)在應(yīng)該成為每個(gè)氣候行動(dòng)和社會(huì)團(tuán)體的要求。
What these responses show is that while understandable, climate shaming, the phenomenon that sees the ultra-rich 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 US, for example, the stagnant 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 decarbonising 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 hyper-polluting private jet travel, a policy which was backed by Labour in 2019 and which should now be a demand of every climate action and socialist group.
在該報(bào)道及其引起的強(qiáng)烈抗議之后，泰勒·斯威夫特和德雷克等名人進(jìn)行了回?fù)?。德雷克為他?duì)短途航班的偏愛辯護(hù)，他辯稱他的旅程并不浪費(fèi)，因?yàn)樗娘w機(jī)是空的，這很有趣。斯威夫特的團(tuán)隊(duì)則辯稱，她只是將她的私人飛機(jī)借給其他人，顯然是在試圖免除自己的責(zé)任。
這些反應(yīng)表明，盡管可以理解，看到超級(jí)富豪因其巨大的污染排放和虛偽的環(huán)保呼吁而受到羞辱的現(xiàn)象，似乎注定要沿著其他地方氣候運(yùn)動(dòng)的有缺陷的、以良心為中心的老路走下去。 例如，在美國(guó)，停滯不前的拜登政府試圖溫和地勸說(shuō)航空企業(yè)到 2030 年自愿減少排放量，但這遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不夠。當(dāng)與創(chuàng)紀(jì)錄的利潤(rùn)相權(quán)衡時(shí)，（環(huán)保人士）針對(duì)化石燃料公司的指手畫腳，希望以此羞辱迫使它們自己進(jìn)行脫碳行動(dòng)，這已經(jīng)一再被證明是毫無(wú)意義的。
訴諸人性中更好的天使并不能解決問(wèn)題；只有系統(tǒng)性變革和決心實(shí)現(xiàn)這種變革的群眾運(yùn)動(dòng)才能真正推動(dòng)我們前進(jìn)。該運(yùn)動(dòng)應(yīng)該推動(dòng)直接監(jiān)管禁止高污染私人飛機(jī)旅行的政策，這項(xiàng)政策在 2019 年曾得到過(guò)工黨的支持，現(xiàn)在應(yīng)該成為每個(gè)氣候行動(dòng)和社會(huì)團(tuán)體的要求。
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 towards 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.
實(shí)施這項(xiàng)禁令將是向前邁出的一步，證明了我們對(duì)解決迄今為止全球政治格局中缺乏的富豪們的肆意排放問(wèn)題的認(rèn)真態(tài)度。然而，歸根結(jié)底，如果不向低碳和零碳的公共交通方式轉(zhuǎn)變，讓所有人都可以普遍和方便使用，那么僅僅停飛私人飛機(jī)仍然是不夠的。這需要國(guó)家交付龐大的環(huán)保的交通基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施項(xiàng)目并將其從私人市場(chǎng)中撤出，將重點(diǎn)放在人和地球環(huán)境而不是私人企業(yè)利潤(rùn)上。如果沒有這一點(diǎn)，單單是讓私人飛機(jī)停飛就像在成群的蝗蟲逼近你家大門時(shí)用蒼蠅拍驅(qū)趕它們一樣。
實(shí)施這項(xiàng)禁令將是向前邁出的一步，證明了我們對(duì)解決迄今為止全球政治格局中缺乏的富豪們的肆意排放問(wèn)題的認(rèn)真態(tài)度。然而，歸根結(jié)底，如果不向低碳和零碳的公共交通方式轉(zhuǎn)變，讓所有人都可以普遍和方便使用，那么僅僅停飛私人飛機(jī)仍然是不夠的。這需要國(guó)家交付龐大的環(huán)保的交通基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施項(xiàng)目并將其從私人市場(chǎng)中撤出，將重點(diǎn)放在人和地球環(huán)境而不是私人企業(yè)利潤(rùn)上。如果沒有這一點(diǎn)，單單是讓私人飛機(jī)停飛就像在成群的蝗蟲逼近你家大門時(shí)用蒼蠅拍驅(qū)趕它們一樣。
評(píng)論翻譯
很贊 ( 0 )
收藏
Don’t forget about the 50+ military jets they flew to the “climate “ summit to discuss how to cut carbon usage.
不要忘記他們飛往“氣候”峰會(huì)討論如何減少碳排放時(shí)使用的 50 多架軍用飛機(jī)。
They make their own rules and we have to suffer
他們制定（有利于）自己的規(guī)則，而我們不得不受苦
This is what bothers me the most either some politician or any random rich famous person telling me to do better for the environment. Meanwhile they own multiple homes and all the other fancy shit, flying around in private jets and telling the plebs to do better. Get fucking wrecked
這是最讓我困擾的一點(diǎn)，無(wú)論是某個(gè)政客還是隨便一個(gè)富有的名人都在告訴我要為環(huán)境做得更好。而與此同時(shí)，他們擁有多座豪宅和所有各種花哨的玩意兒，坐著私人飛機(jī)飛來(lái)飛去，告訴屁民們應(yīng)該做得更好。這些家伙們搞砸了。
Tax the fuck out of them. Tax the living fuck out of every private jet mile they fly.
對(duì)他們征稅。對(duì)他們飛行的每一英里的私人飛機(jī)征稅。
Tax the fucking private planes too. Tax everything taxable that can be taxed about the planes.
對(duì)他媽的私人飛機(jī)征稅。對(duì)可以征收的私人飛機(jī)的所有應(yīng)征稅項(xiàng)征稅。
10000% fuel duty on privately owned planes - problem (mostly) solved.
Plus, use that money to invest into technology for either electric of hydrogen planes!
把私人飛機(jī)的燃油稅上調(diào)到10000% - 就可以解決（大部分）問(wèn)題。
另外，可以用這筆錢投資于氫能飛機(jī)的技術(shù)！
That will quite simply never happen. A better idea is to tax / monetize the CO2 emissions more appropriately.
這根本不會(huì)發(fā)生。一個(gè)更好的主意是更適當(dāng)?shù)貙?duì)二氧化碳排放征稅或是貨幣化。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://nxnpts.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
Did you know that most private jets are not owned by individuals? A lot of them are charter or fractional ownership companies that dont give a shit who is onboard as long as someone is paying. Most jets are apart of these charter groups.
你們是否知道大多數(shù)私人飛機(jī)并不屬于個(gè)人所有？它們中的大多數(shù)都屬于包機(jī)公司或部分所有權(quán)企業(yè)，只要有人付款，他們就不會(huì)在乎誰(shuí)在飛機(jī)上。大多數(shù)噴氣式飛機(jī)都屬于這些包機(jī)團(tuán)體。
Did you know that we really don't care who owns them? It's about the human garbage that uses them.
你知道我們真的不在乎誰(shuí)擁有它們嗎？這是關(guān)于使用它們的人類渣渣的問(wèn)題。
Former company owners had a small plane. Husband and wife. Definitely owned by them but registered as an LLC for privacy and business reasons. Privacy because they didn't want the public record aircraft registration associated with their names and home address .
They didn't represent any consequential degree of CO2 emissions -- they had 2 small planes that got used maybe few times a year when they were actually operational -- but certainly are a testament to how hazy ownership of planes can be.
我以前公司的老板有一架小型私人飛機(jī)。他和他老婆，飛機(jī)絕對(duì)歸他們所有，但出于隱私和商業(yè)原因注冊(cè)在商業(yè)航空公司名下。因?yàn)樗麄儾幌Ｍ沧?cè)記錄的飛機(jī)與他們的姓名和家庭地址被聯(lián)系起來(lái)。
這并不代表任何相應(yīng)程度的二氧化碳排放——他們有兩架小型飛機(jī)，它們每年可能只會(huì)實(shí)際使用幾次——但無(wú)疑證明了私人飛機(jī)的所有權(quán)有多模糊。
And the thing is that it doesn’t matter if it’s owned by a company or not. The tax is going to reduce their use, and that income can be put in good use.
They will getting much more expensive and some of them will close. Which is good for the environment？
問(wèn)題是它是否為公司所有并不重要。（更高的）收稅將減少它們的使用，而這些收入可以得到很好的利用。
它們會(huì)變得更加昂貴，其中一些會(huì)關(guān)閉。（與現(xiàn)在相比）哪個(gè)選擇對(duì)環(huán)境更好？
If you're voting to stop climate change you should practice what you preach. One house 2000 sq ft,all electric cars,fly commercial only. John Kerry in charge of climate change owns 6 homes ,12 cars, 1 jet, 2 yachts. Don't make me get started on the rest of the clowns. Tax them
如果你投票要阻止氣候變化，你應(yīng)該為你所宣揚(yáng)的付出實(shí)際行動(dòng)。 （比如）只住一棟2000 平方英尺（約合185平方米）的房子，出行完全依靠電動(dòng)汽車，僅限乘坐商業(yè)航班。 負(fù)責(zé)氣候變化的（政府特使）約翰·克里擁有 6 棟豪宅、12輛汽車、1 架噴氣式私人飛機(jī)、2艘游艇。 不要讓我開始列舉出其他小丑。 對(duì)他們（狠狠地）收稅
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://nxnpts.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
But he can only be in one home or drive one car at a time! /s
但他一次只能呆在一座房子里或只能開一輛車！苦笑
Yes but all the other homes are burning electricity. He's a wasteful fucktard. I read an article a couple months back his average electric bill is almost 10k
是的，但（他的）所有其他的房產(chǎn)庭都在燒電。他是個(gè)浪費(fèi)的混蛋。幾個(gè)月前我讀過(guò)一篇文章，他的平均電費(fèi)幾乎是一萬(wàn)刀
(The following is a re-post)
“Arguments of hypocrisy” deeply, profoundly miss the point when it comes to climate change. It’s comparable to pointing to some rich asshole misbehaving on the Titanic when the ship is sinking.
That is not to say that one shouldn’t practice what one preaches. Right now I am reading Being the Change, written by a former NASA astrophysicist turned climate scientist who reduced his personal emissions 90%. I hope to emulate him—within reason—though I know I will fail (I cannot grow vegetables as a renter).
Parts of our world are literally on fire due to climate change, and other parts are drowning. Half of the vertebrate population of this planet had disappeared in a 40-year timefrx. All previous mass extinctions (70-95% of all animals dead) involved climate change (with different drivers). 99-100% of scientific experts in the field agree that it is happening and human-driven (according to one or two recent studies).
This is a wicked problem—a short, medium, and very long term existential threat to almost everyone and everything that any of us hold dear. Experts say it will involve change on an almost unimaginable scale: efforts on par with the mobilization efforts for WW2—a total war, but on a global scale.
在談到氣候變化時(shí)，“虛偽的論點(diǎn)”深深地、深刻地錯(cuò)過(guò)了重點(diǎn)。這就像在泰坦尼克號(hào)沉沒時(shí)指著一些有錢的混蛋在船上的不端行為一樣。
這并不是說(shuō)一個(gè)人不應(yīng)該實(shí)踐他所宣揚(yáng)的?，F(xiàn)在我正在閱讀《作出改變》，作者是一位美國(guó)航天局的一位前任天體物理學(xué)家，后來(lái)成為氣候科學(xué)家，他的個(gè)人排放量減少了 90%。我希望在合理范圍內(nèi)效仿他，盡管我知道我不可能成功（作為租客我不能種菜）。
由于氣候變化，我們世界的某些部分確實(shí)正處于水深火熱之中。這個(gè)星球上一半的脊椎動(dòng)物種群在 40 年的時(shí)間內(nèi)消失了。以前所有的大規(guī)模滅絕（所有動(dòng)物死亡的 70-95%）都涉及氣候變化（有不同的驅(qū)動(dòng)因素）。該領(lǐng)域 99-100% 的科學(xué)專家同意它正在發(fā)生并且是人為因素驅(qū)動(dòng)的（根據(jù)最近的一兩項(xiàng)研究）。
這是一個(gè)邪惡的問(wèn)題——對(duì)幾乎所有人以及我們?nèi)魏稳苏湟暤囊磺卸紭?gòu)成短期、中期和非常長(zhǎng)期的生存威脅。專家表示，這將涉及幾乎無(wú)法想象的規(guī)模變化：與二戰(zhàn)的動(dòng)員努力相提并論——一場(chǎng)全面戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)，但在全球范圍內(nèi)。
Since the publication of that work, things have become even more grim. The heat waves in the UK and France weren’t expected until 2050, according to current climate models (my memory may be off on some details).
Hothouse Earth, written by a climate scientist, gives an even more up-to-date and concise descxtion of what we are in for. It will be released on Audible in several days.
I just turned 38 and live in Canada, yet I believe I may not live out a full lifespan. Our children and grand children are in for something worse.
One UN prediction is that climate-induced migration may equal one billion human beings by 2050–A thousand times larger than the Syrian migration crisis that caused political upheaval on the continent. This is merely one possible impact in the near term.
Now is the time to write your representative, tell your trusted loved ones about the problem, reduce your own emissions, and whatever else you can do to prevent this calamity.
In a a sense, climate change is all that matters, because without dealing with it nothing else will matter. To us, anyway.
不宜居住的地球很好地概述了局勢(shì)的嚴(yán)重性。在 2019 年出版后，作者（大衛(wèi)·福斯特-華萊士）被選為《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》的常規(guī)氣候?qū)谧骷摇?br /> 自那部作品發(fā)表以來(lái)，情況變得更加嚴(yán)峻。根據(jù)氣候模型預(yù)測(cè)，英國(guó)和法國(guó)目前的熱浪本來(lái)要到2050 年才會(huì)出現(xiàn)（我的記憶可能在某些細(xì)節(jié)上有所偏差）。
氣候科學(xué)家撰寫的溫室地球?qū)ξ覀兊哪繕?biāo)進(jìn)行了更新和簡(jiǎn)潔的描述。它將在幾天后在 Audible（聽書網(wǎng)）上發(fā)布。
我剛滿 38 歲，住在加拿大，但我相信我可能沒法活完這輩子。我們的孩子和孫子的情況會(huì)更糟。
聯(lián)合國(guó)的一項(xiàng)預(yù)測(cè)是，到 2050 年，氣候引起的移民人數(shù)可能相當(dāng)于10 億人——比導(dǎo)致非洲大陸政治動(dòng)蕩的敘利亞移民危機(jī)大一千倍。這只是短期內(nèi)可能的影響之一。
現(xiàn)在是時(shí)候給你的選區(qū)議員寫信了，與你信任的親人討論這個(gè)問(wèn)題，減少你自己的排放，以及你可以采取的任何其他措施來(lái)防止這場(chǎng)災(zāi)難。
從某種意義上說(shuō)，氣候變化才是最重要的，因?yàn)槿绻惶幚硭?，?duì)我們來(lái)說(shuō)，其他任何事情都不重要。
No, stop worrying about brad pitt flying 15 minutes back and forth. easily the largest sources of pollution is Freighters, Warehouses, Production facilities,Trucks and Waste management. Its absurd people think their plastic bags and cars are the problem. The REAL problem is society cant function without their goods shipping around the world, so unfortunately you're all screwed.
At a minimum, please direct ALL your anger at any of your local Transportation, Production,or Warehouse facilities. They most like produce the most pollution in your town.
不，別再擔(dān)心布拉德·皮特花15 分鐘坐一趟往返航班了。最大的污染源很容易是貨輪、倉(cāng)庫(kù)、生產(chǎn)設(shè)施、卡車和廢物管理。荒謬的人們認(rèn)為他們的塑料袋和汽車是問(wèn)題所在。真正的問(wèn)題是，如果沒有他們的貨物運(yùn)往世界各地，社會(huì)就無(wú)法運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)，所以不幸的是，你們都被搞砸了。
至少，請(qǐng)將你的所有怒火發(fā)泄到你當(dāng)?shù)氐娜魏芜\(yùn)輸、生產(chǎn)或倉(cāng)庫(kù)設(shè)施。他們最喜歡在你的城鎮(zhèn)產(chǎn)生最嚴(yán)重的污染。
If you drill down into the data, road transportation remains the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions:
https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector
如果深入研究數(shù)據(jù)，公路運(yùn)輸仍然是溫室氣體排放的最大來(lái)源：
Take My Energy
Private jets make up around 0.04% of total emissions globally. This is just a distraction.
私人飛機(jī)約占全球總排放量的 0.04%。這（對(duì)全球環(huán)境來(lái)說(shuō)）只是一種干擾。
Even if that's true, it's an unfair comparison to look at global emissions. What percentage of air travel is made up of private jets and how many people did they serve compared to the rest of the industry?
即使這是真的，以全球排放量進(jìn)行比較也是不公平的。與其他行業(yè)相比，私人飛機(jī)占航空旅行的百分比以及他們服務(wù)了多少人？
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://nxnpts.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
Private jets account for more than 3.5% of aviation emissions, and, due to the extra climate damage from their contrail-induced cirrus, the greenhouse effects of these emissions are more than doubled. All from a tiny handful of individuals who could just as easily settle for commercial flights, or, with many of the ridiculous 20-minute flights detailed here, they could save both time and emissions by driving.
That, my friend, is grossly unfair, so we won't allow it. No one carbon pollutes nearly as much as the super rich do, heedlessly killing people. We'll go after their yachts and the rest of their other climate-killing toys as well, and we'll never stop.
私人飛機(jī)的排放量占航空排放量的 3.5% 以上，而且由于尾跡引起的卷云對(duì)氣候造成的額外破壞，這些排放物的溫室效應(yīng)增加了一倍以上。而且所有這些都來(lái)自極少數(shù)富豪，他們可以很容易地適應(yīng)商業(yè)航班，或者，這里詳細(xì)描述了許多荒謬的只有 20 分鐘的航班，他們本來(lái)可以通過(guò)駕車旅行節(jié)約時(shí)間和排放。
我的朋友，那是非常不公平的，所以我們不應(yīng)該允許。沒有人比超級(jí)富豪造成的碳污染如此之多，他們會(huì)不顧一切地殺人。我們將追捕他們的游艇和其他破壞氣候的玩具，我們永遠(yuǎn)不會(huì)停止。
I have more of an issue with elected officials using them. Same with elected officials buying and selling individual stocks. Same for their immediately family.
我對(duì)民選官員使用它們有更多的疑問(wèn)。民選官員和他們的直系親屬操縱股票買賣也是如此