网民讨论:是时候禁止私人飞机了——或者至少对它们征以重税
2022-08-09 翱翔精灵 6701
正文翻译

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.

是时候禁止私人飞机了——或者至少对它们征以重税
2022年8月4日
作者:本·戴维斯
上周关于“名人们的私人喷气机”使用的报告清楚地表明,富豪们是多么随意地将碳排放到大气中。我们应该让他们的私人飞机永远离开天空。

原创翻译:龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处


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,数字营销机构 Yard 发布了一份基于“名人们的私人喷气机”综合调查结果的报告,这是一个自动跟踪器,通过分享他们的私人飞机飞行数据来指出这些一线大A们最严重的过度(污染)行为。

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.

英国和世界各地的气温正在打破新纪录。随着野火、干旱和死亡人数达到数千人,气候危机的灾难性影响已经在这里出现,所有人都清楚地看到了。
再加上能源和汽油价格飙升、通货膨胀猖獗、实际工资下降,以及长期陷于资金不足和日益昂贵的公共交通系统,我们的旅行方式、我们的钱包和对地球的影响之间的关系一直处于最前沿在这个公众高度敏感和审查的时期。“停止使用石油”等环保直接行动组织甚至针对道路基础设施,短暂地瘫痪了M25高速公路,并呼吁停止新的化石燃料项目。
上周,数字营销机构 Yard 进一步向(私人喷气式飞机)使用的化石燃料倾注了气候激进主义之火,它发布了一份基于“名人们的私人喷气机”综合调查结果的报告,通过分享他们的私人飞机航班数据,该自动跟踪器指出了一线大A人物们,从他们的二氧化碳排放量到燃料成本,有时甚至是荒谬的短途旅行时间,这些数据都经过了仔细审查——并在普通人群中引发了愤怒、有时还是绝望的情绪,相比这些飞在天空中的人,普通人群体更有可能首当其冲地承受气候危机(带来的恶果)。

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.

人类中大约有80%从未乘坐过飞行航班,而凯莉·詹纳 (卡戴珊姐妹排名第三的、最年轻的成员) 一周内乘坐了五次(私人飞机)航班,平均飞行时间不到二十分钟,其中包括一次三分钟的旅程,她一次旅行的排放量是乌干达人平均每年碳排放足迹的十倍。本周气候变化导致山洪暴发,造成了数十人死亡,数千人流离失所。一般来说,私人飞机对环境的破坏性是出了名的,平均排放的二氧化碳是商用飞机的 14 倍,这种交通方式是交通工具污染排放中居第二高的。尽管人们越来越关注气候变化,但自疫情大流行以来,私人飞机的使用量实际上还在上升,2021 年的航班数量比2019年增加了 7%。
极端不平等在气候危机恶化中的作用本身并不是新闻。乐施会去年报告称,全球 1% 最富有的人的碳排放量将达到在2030年将气温升幅控制在1.5°摄氏度所需的限制水平的30 倍,而最贫穷的50%人类的碳足迹仍将远低于此水平。泰勒·斯威夫特、弗洛伊德·梅威瑟和杰伊·Z等私人喷气式飞机著名人物——这三位 Yard 报告中的头号人物——不仅是不负责任的人,而且在我们生活的经济体系中鼓励和加剧了不平等的等级和怪诞的过度消费的症状.
随着私人飞机规模的扩大以及新的超级富豪群体将自己锁定在这种交通方式中,这个问题将变得更加严重,使他们的星球变得无情地变小,而令我们的星球变得难以忍受。从长远来看,随着像埃隆·马斯克和杰夫·贝索斯这样的亿万富翁煽动者将目光投向外太空而不仅仅是地球上的天空,事情可能会更进一步影响到地球上的几十亿人口。

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.

在该报道及其引起的强烈抗议之后,泰勒·斯威夫特和德雷克等名人进行了回击。德雷克为他对短途航班的偏爱辩护,他辩称他的旅程并不浪费,因为他的飞机是空的,这很有趣。斯威夫特的团队则辩称,她只是将她的私人飞机借给其他人,显然是在试图免除自己的责任。
这些反应表明,尽管可以理解,看到超级富豪因其巨大的污染排放和虚伪的环保呼吁而受到羞辱的现象,似乎注定要沿着其他地方气候运动的有缺陷的、以良心为中心的老路走下去。 例如,在美国,停滞不前的拜登政府试图温和地劝说航空企业到 2030 年自愿减少排放量,但这远远不够。当与创纪录的利润相权衡时,(环保人士)针对化石燃料公司的指手画脚,希望以此羞辱迫使它们自己进行脱碳行动,这已经一再被证明是毫无意义的。
诉诸人性中更好的天使并不能解决问题;只有系统性变革和决心实现这种变革的群众运动才能真正推动我们前进。该运动应该推动直接监管禁止高污染私人飞机旅行的政策,这项政策在 2019 年曾得到过工党的支持,现在应该成为每个气候行动和社会团体的要求。

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.

实施这项禁令将是向前迈出的一步,证明了我们对解决迄今为止全球政治格局中缺乏的富豪们的肆意排放问题的认真态度。然而,归根结底,如果不向低碳和零碳的公共交通方式转变,让所有人都可以普遍和方便使用,那么仅仅停飞私人飞机仍然是不够的。这需要国家交付庞大的环保的交通基础设施项目并将其从私人市场中撤出,将重点放在人和地球环境而不是私人企业利润上。如果没有这一点,单单是让私人飞机停飞就像在成群的蝗虫逼近你家大门时用苍蝇拍驱赶它们一样。

评论翻译
No_Consequence_3091
Don’t forget about the 50+ military jets they flew to the “climate “ summit to discuss how to cut carbon usage.

不要忘记他们飞往“气候”峰会讨论如何减少碳排放时使用的 50 多架军用飞机。

bertsboat
They make their own rules and we have to suffer

他们制定(有利于)自己的规则,而我们不得不受苦

random90125
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

这是最让我困扰的一点,无论是某个政客还是随便一个富有的名人都在告诉我要为环境做得更好。而与此同时,他们拥有多座豪宅和所有各种花哨的玩意儿,坐着私人飞机飞来飞去,告诉屁民们应该做得更好。这些家伙们搞砸了。

Avid Voter
Tax the fuck out of them. Tax the living fuck out of every private jet mile they fly.

对他们征税。对他们飞行的每一英里的私人飞机征税。

Monthly Top 1% Karma
Tax the fucking private planes too. Tax everything taxable that can be taxed about the planes.

对他妈的私人飞机征税。对可以征收的私人飞机的所有应征税项征税。

Avid Voter
10000% fuel duty on privately owned planes - problem (mostly) solved.
Plus, use that money to invest into technology for either electric of hydrogen planes!

把私人飞机的燃油税上调到10000% - 就可以解决(大部分)问题。
另外,可以用这笔钱投资于氢能飞机的技术!

martianhacker
That will quite simply never happen. A better idea is to tax / monetize the CO2 emissions more appropriately.

这根本不会发生。一个更好的主意是更适当地对二氧化碳排放征税或是货币化。

Flavor_Nukes
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.

你们是否知道大多数私人飞机并不属于个人所有?它们中的大多数都属于包机公司或部分所有权企业,只要有人付款,他们就不会在乎谁在飞机上。大多数喷气式飞机都属于这些包机团体。

king_zapph
Did you know that we really don't care who owns them? It's about the human garbage that uses them.

你知道我们真的不在乎谁拥有它们吗?这是关于使用它们的人类渣渣的问题。

droppedbits
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飞机。他和他老婆,飞机绝对归他们所有,但出于隐私和商业原因注册在商业航空公司名下。因为他们不希望公共注册记录的飞机与他们的姓名和家庭地址被联系起来。
这并不代表任何相应程度的二氧化碳排放——他们有两架小型飞机,它们每年可能只会实际使用几次——但无疑证明了私人飞机的所有权有多模糊。

GranPino
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?

问题是它是否为公司所有并不重要。(更高的)收税将减少它们的使用,而这些收入可以得到很好的利用。
它们会变得更加昂贵,其中一些会关闭。(与现在相比)哪个选择对环境更好?

Available-Iron-7419
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

如果你投票要阻止气候变化,你应该为你所宣扬的付出实际行动。 (比如)只住一栋2000 平方英尺(约合185平方米)的房子,出行完全依靠电动汽车,仅限乘坐商业航班。 负责气候变化的(政府特使)约翰·克里拥有 6 栋豪宅、12辆汽车、1 架喷气式私人飞机、2艘游艇。 不要让我开始列举出其他小丑。 对他们(狠狠地)收税

sharkamino
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开一辆车!苦笑

daytripr69
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)所有其他的房产庭都在烧电。他是个浪费的混蛋。几个月前我读过一篇文章,他的平均电费几乎是一万刀

Joeb667
(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.

在谈到气候变化时,“虚伪的论点”深深地、深刻地错过了重点。这就像在泰坦尼克号沉没时指着一些有钱的混蛋在船上的不端行为一样。
这并不是说一个人不应该实践他所宣扬的。现在我正在阅读《作出改变》,作者是一位美国航天局的一位前任天体物理学家,后来成为气候科学家,他的个人排放量减少了 90%。我希望在合理范围内效仿他,尽管我知道我不可能成功(作为租客我不能种菜)。
由于气候变化,我们世界的某些部分确实正处于水深火热之中。这个星球上一半的脊椎动物种群在 40 年的时间内消失了。以前所有的大规模灭绝(所有动物死亡的 70-95%)都涉及气候变化(有不同的驱动因素)。该领域 99-100% 的科学专家同意它正在发生并且是人为因素驱动的(根据最近的一两项研究)。
这是一个邪恶的问题——对几乎所有人以及我们任何人珍视的一切都构成短期、中期和非常长期的生存威胁。专家表示,这将涉及几乎无法想象的规模变化:与二战的动员努力相提并论——一场全面战争,但在全球范围内。

原创翻译:龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处


The Uninhabitable Earth gives an excellent overview of the severity of the situation. Following its publication in 2019 the author (David Foster-Wallace) was sexted as a regular climate columnist for the New York Times.
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势的严重性。在 2019 年出版后,作者(大卫·福斯特-华莱士)被选为《纽约时报》的常规气候专栏作家。
自那部作品发表以来,情况变得更加严峻。根据气候模型预测,英国和法国目前的热浪本来要到2050 年才会出现(我的记忆可能在某些细节上有所偏差)。
气候科学家撰写的温室地球对我们的目标进行了更新和简洁的描述。它将在几天后在 Audible(听书网)上发布。
我刚满 38 岁,住在加拿大,但我相信我可能没法活完这辈子。我们的孩子和孙子的情况会更糟。
联合国的一项预测是,到 2050 年,气候引起的移民人数可能相当于10 亿人——比导致非洲大陆政治动荡的叙利亚移民危机大一千倍。这只是短期内可能的影响之一。
现在是时候给你的选区议员写信了,与你信任的亲人讨论这个问题,减少你自己的排放,以及你可以采取的任何其他措施来防止这场灾难。
从某种意义上说,气候变化才是最重要的,因为如果不处理它,对我们来说,其他任何事情都不重要。

Dramatic-Rutabaga972
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,别再担心布拉德·皮特花15 分钟坐一趟往返航班了。最大的污染源很容易是货轮、仓库、生产设施、卡车和废物管理。荒谬的人们认为他们的塑料袋和汽车是问题所在。真正的问题是,如果没有他们的货物运往世界各地,社会就无法运转,所以不幸的是,你们都被搞砸了。
至少,请将你的所有怒火发泄到你当地的任何运输、生产或仓库设施。他们最喜欢在你的城镇产生最严重的污染。

原创翻译:龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处


imalusr
If you drill down into the data, road transportation remains the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions:
https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector

如果深入研究数据,公路运输仍然是温室气体排放的最大来源:

syfari
Take My Energy
Private jets make up around 0.04% of total emissions globally. This is just a distraction.

私人飞机约占全球总排放量的 0.04%。这(对全球环境来说)只是一种干扰。
原创翻译:龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处


shadowromantic
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?

即使这是真的,以全球排放量进行比较也是不公平的。与其他行业相比,私人飞机占航空旅行的百分比以及他们服务了多少人?

Splenda
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.

私人飞机的排放量占航空排放量的 3.5% 以上,而且由于尾迹引起的卷云对气候造成的额外破坏,这些排放物的温室效应增加了一倍以上。而且所有这些都来自极少数富豪,他们可以很容易地适应商业航班,或者,这里详细描述了许多荒谬的只有 20 分钟的航班,他们本来可以通过驾车旅行节约时间和排放。
我的朋友,那是非常不公平的,所以我们不应该允许。没有人比超级富豪造成的碳污染如此之多,他们会不顾一切地杀人。我们将追捕他们的游艇和其他破坏气候的玩具,我们永远不会停止。

Right-Pirate-7084
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.

我对民选官员使用它们有更多的疑问。民选官员和他们的直系亲属操纵股票买卖也是如此

原创翻译:龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处


很赞 0
收藏