Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Rich kids desperate to keep their privileges while maintaining the fiction they care about climate change have demanded their parents purchase carbon offsets to compensate for the CO2 burned by dad’s private jet.
Can You Own a Private Jet If You Care About Climate Change?
From offsets to solar-powered planes, the options to lower the carbon footprint of personal air travel today range from easy to almost impossible. By Siobhan Wagner
For many people, private jets seem like an extravagance. But for busy executives and celebrities, the time savings, convenience, and extra security they offer make them more of a necessity.
Lately, however, they’ve come with an added cost: eco-guilt. Younger generations are putting pressure on their wealthy parents and grandparents to consider their family’s contribution to global warming, says Darren Kelland, who handles the affairs of ultrahigh-net-worth clients at Hawksford, a financial-services company based on Jersey, one of the U.K.’s Channel Islands. He recalls that one client’s daughter wouldn’t let her father purchase a private jet without a plan to offset its emissions.
…
“I can’t think of anybody who doesn’t care about the environment,” says Steve Varsano, founder of Jet Business, a private plane brokerage in London. “People really do want to contribute to the fix.” Customers who come into Varsano’s showroom are now asking about how to offset the planes’ emissions, he says. At the same time, the industry is testing aviation fuels with lower carbon, Varsano says, which could have a positive impact if widely used.
…
Read more: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-22/can-you-own-a-private-jet-if-you-care-about-climate-change
Sorry Greta, you lose. Rich greens never had any intention of giving up flying. Even Extinction Rebellion extremists made excuses for their celebrity carbon hogs flying thousands of miles to join climate protests.
Now the rich have settled on an acceptable cover for their air travel hypocrisy, they no longer have to pretend to cut back on their personal extravagances.
I guess the sale of indulgences never really went out of style.
Oh it did. But it’s been resurrected. When you’re desperate to maintain your hypocritical extravagant lifestyle, any excuse will do, no matter how ridiculous.
So …. as long as somebody else pays for somebody else’s CO2 emissions those emissions … um … didn’t happen?
The “cost” is passed down to those who can’t afford to live without what makes those emissions?
Worse, the alleged first-order forcing persists and progresses in darkness. They must think people are so green.
It’s not the CO2 I’m worried about with these jets, it’s the chemtrails ! /s
Translation: We’re rich and you are not. Sucks to be you.
The problem is the GreenBlob isn’t just satisfied with being rich. Folks like Steyer, Bloomberg, Soros are intent on destroying the middle class affluence by saddling us with huge energy bills with artifices that funnel the new money to them through wind and solar investments along with Enron like tax credit and carbon credit trading schemes. Meanwhile Bloomberg and Steyer have been working furiously to buy the politicians to maintain the wind and solar tax credits.
Not surprised that a secular religion now has its own form of indulgences.
Constant reminder, rich people know they don’t have to make any sacrifices to their lifestyles – they just demand that those filthy, grasping people in coach make them.
So if you pay you can save the planet? That means the u.n asking for billions is right as money saves the planet?
It sounds as thought money will save us from all the evil in the world.
I do wonder how they spend that money though, as nobody seems to know.
Money – Pink Floyd
Gilmore gave millions for GREEN WASHING what a MORON.
If I may ask a question on this.
How does planting a tree at ground level (carbon offset) compensate for CO2 dispensed at 12,000 meters?
Air mixes
Yes, Mark, air mixes, but CO2 is heavier than air, therefore wants to sink down the atmospheric column, mixing as it sinks.
So how much of a plume of CO2 released at 12,000 metres altitude is going to be inhalable by vegetation at ground level.
I guess that’s what Scott is alluding to.
CO2 sinks, but only in still air. Air is never still.
Regardless, taking your argument as given.
You point out that CO2 sinks, then ask how CO2 released at altitude can get to the ground.
If you think about it, you have answered your own question.
I guess the best way to resolve this question would be for us to consult Greta, because she can see the CO2 in the air and so directly observe what happens with it 🙂
Mr.
Consider that Sugar and salt are heavier than water and sugar or salt sinks in water when poured into it, but when they have dissolved in water, they diffuse uniformly throughout the bulk of the water. The water-sugar-salt solution does not separate due to gravity.
Miscible gases are in effect dissolved in each other. Like the water-sugar-salt solution, the nitrogen-oxygen-argon-carbon dioxide-etc. solution does not separate due to gravity.
Hot CO2 emissions from a plane are already well mixed with nitrogen, water vapor, and excess oxygen. The water vapor often condenses out, but there is never any possibility of the CO2 separating out and sinking to the surface. The higher concentration mixes into the bulk of the atmosphere and gradually diffuses throughout. That is how some of it eventually gets to the trees.
If CO2 sank to the ground there would be a high concentration of CO2 near the ground, and not much life on earth would survive. In fact, fossil fuels would not ignite.
There’s also turbulence, such as thunderstorms which mix the atmosphere.
No matter what, we need more CO2. High low or in-between.
I remember a school experiment that lasted at least a year. We had some Copper Sulphate crystals at the bottom of a measuring cylinder about 30cm tall. We carefully filled it with water put it on a shelf and forgot it for a year perhaps longer. At the end of the experiment the copper sulphate had dissolved and was distributed through the column very dense at the bottom barely detectable at the top.
In my mind this is typical of all mixing in a still medium without external influences.
“Essenhigh (2009) points out that the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in their first report (Houghton et al., 1990) gives an atmospheric CO2 residence time (lifetime) of 50-200 years”
While the IPCC’s residence time is poppycock, it begs the question how do they rationalise trees at ground level and emissions at 12,000 meters, while saying the CO2 stays up there for so long?
Saying that CO2 will last for 50-200 years in the atmosphere is not the same as saying that CO2 will stay where ever it was released for that 50-200 years.
Mark your own logic is flawed its either up there for 50-200 years therefore its a waste of time or it circulates hits the ground and is not there for 50 to 200 years therefore no problem?
pick a side
Scott, it doesn’t “circulate, hit the ground” and is then gone. It keeps circulating, and eventually is taken up various sinks. You’re wanting to make it black and white, and it’s not.
Hey Scott,
How does water vapor at 12,000 meters water plants at ground level? Different process and shorter residence time, but hopefully it makes a point.
In any case, you need some basic chemistry education.
Its a tangled web we weave when first we set out to deceive.
It’s not about how long or where it’s about conflicting statement from the warmists not reality. It either is up there for years or it gets low enough to be taken up by a sink can’t have both therefore carbon offsets are a waste of time for air travel or co2 is not a problem in the first place.
Lol It’s alright Michael you will grasp it one day keep trying.
“It either is up there for years or it gets low enough to be taken up by a sink can’t have both therefore carbon offsets are a waste of time for air travel or co2 is not a problem in the first place.”
Scott, your idea of circulation is pretty naive.
Residence time as Mark correctly pointed out refers to how long the CO2 remains in the atmosphere—the entire atmosphere, not the specific spot where it was emitted. It diffuses throughout. Some is consumed in photosynthesis, some is absorbed into the oceans and other bodies of water. Plants die and decay, releasing CO2 back into the air. The oceans release some of their CO2 in areas where the surface warms. It’s called the he carbon cycle.
If you could observe the typical CO2 molecule being released into the atmosphere it would remain somewhere in the atmosphere for a period of time. That period of time is called the residence time. It is probably closer to 5 years.
Yep, Mr.: CO₂ is heavier than air:
https://www.google.com/search?q=CO2+is+heavier+than+air%2C+&client=ms-android-huawei&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8&ctxr&ctxsl_trans=1&tlitetl=de&tlitetxt=CO2%20is%20heavier%20than%20air%2C%20
Could one also use this argument regarding refrigerants (CFCs)? CFCs are way heavier than air.
I assure you, 1Kg of CFC, weighs exactly the same as 1Kg of air.
But how much does a pound of rocks weigh?
Let me try another analogy. Everyone knows that lead has much higher density than copper, just as CFCs have a much higher density than nitrogen and oxygen. But they can mix to form a solution that will not separate into layers by density. We call it bronze.
So yes, you could use the same flawed argument to say that CFCs can’t go high up in the atmosphere, but that would be wrong.
WRT planting trees, drive around and look at solar arrays. You will see that many, many trees were cut down to provide space for the panels. I suspect that there have been millions of trees worldwide that have suffered this fate.
So, Eric, you are against “virtue signaling” by purchasing carbon offsets, because you realize it’s nothing but a guilt tax that doesn’t offset any carbon? Or are you tired of being lectured to by snooty rich jerks that go about their life without regard to what they say? Or maybe the idea that these people say we have to save the planet but it’s up to you because they are too busy with other things? Or maybe the whole idea that rich/intelligent people make money all the while they are killing the planet and none of us have anywhere to go when the planet dies, but they are on a suicide mission and won’t stop? Let’s impeach President Trump for good measure while we’re in the majority (wait a minute, I just checked my investment account and bothering President Trump right now is not a good idea!).
What virtue are they signaling?
Ron, I’m simply pointing out the absurdity of greens claiming flying harms the planet, when all you have to do to cancel the harm is buy a few carbon indulgences
Personally I would love to go back to the time when over ocean flights were made in the Boeing 314 Clipper flying boat. https://www.businessinsider.com/photos-the-luxurious-boeing-314-clipper-2013-8
Yes… and GRUD NO.
If we ignore the grinding drone of four Twin Cyclones and the lack of in flight Wifi, there is a large degree of romance involved in traveling in one of these beasties. This wasn’t just the production line grind of modern mass transit, this was an adventure with gold plated table service.
And it would want to be. This was a service for the elite. Trans Pacific tickets, adjusted for inflation, were about $14,000. The common people didn’t fly in Clippers. Actually the common people didn’t fly. Actually the common people for the most part didn’t leave their home city and if they did so they went – economy – by train.
Clippers were also by our standards SLOW. San Francisco to Honolulu was 19 hours. Sure it was 19 hours in a VERY nice aircraft being fed very nice food and mingling with very nice (and equally rich) people, but it was still 19 hours in a plane.
Yes, I would love to travel either by Clipper or say the British Empire flying boats. It would be an utterly amazing experience. However that is also the point. The flight would be the experience. When I fly long distance the flight is the method which allows me to experience the destination. My level of disposable income is not high enough to allow me to become completely egocentric when I travel and I would rather my holiday budget was spent irresponsibly once I have safely cleared customs and are in a position to enjoy myself.
Yes Clippers would be fun, but they would also be fun for the cashed up elite, an not for the common horde carefully saving their annual leave and lose change for that once a year budget holiday.
Also, in case I forget – OT – MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!!!!!!
The Boeing 314 made the first circumnavigation of the earth by a commercial aircraft.
On January 16th, 1942 Churchill left to go home with the members of his high command from the first of the great WW II conferences code named ARCADIA which had been held at Washington, DC. The plan was to fly to Bermuda where the new British battleship HMS Duke of York was waiting to take them home. The aircraft they flew in was a BOAC Boeing 314 Clipper flying boat. One of three Britain had purchased. Churchill was impressed with the comfort of the aircraft and asked the pilot if it had the range to make it from Bermuda to Britain. The answer was yes. So Churchill and his high command flew home in the aircraft. Thus Churchill became the first head of state to fly across the Atlantic. This was a little less than 15 years after Charles Lindbergh had flown nonstop across the Atlantic. The navigation of the Clipper’s crew was a little off due to weather and it came close to the German occupied coast of France. Also, it was identified as a bogy by the British Air Defenses and a flight of Hawker Hurricane fighters were dispatched to shoot it down. Luckily they failed to find the Clipper and it landed safe and sound.
I have flown multiple times in a C-123 Provider. A couple of times significant distances across country. The aircraft was powered by a couple of Pratt & Whitney R-2800-99W Double Wasp engines and I though not as smooth as the turboprops of the C-130, the sound relative to the turboprop was not an issue. In both aircraft we used sign language as we played poker to pass the time. BTW did the same flying the 4 engine C-141.
A technicality: “Thus Churchill became the first head of state to fly across the Atlantic.” Afraid not; Churchill (nor any other prime minister) was not head of state. Head of government, yes – but that is very different. King George VI was head of state then, as is the Queen now.
So your saying as far as the title “head of state”, the POTUS is equivalent to royalty and a PM does not have such a title? The President is after all the head of state of the United States.
Is there any independent audit of the supposed carbon savings behind the so-called carbon credits? Any scientific analysis every year that the claimed savings occurred?
Not now as we’re in delicate negotiations with the Martians to flog them a heap of worthless thin air derivatives for a motzah as they don’t get the fallacy of composition either.
Probably the wealthy people who are arguing for carbon dioxide offsets are the same people who own the companies from which the carbon dioxide offsets are bought.
From the article, “At the same time, the industry is testing aviation fuels with lower carbon …”. I don’t think it means what they think it means regarding “carbon.” Whatever substitute fuel is converted from plant sources or synthesized from pyrolized waste plastic, or from whatever origin, might indeed be accounted to have less of a “carbon” impact because it did not come out of the ground by extraction. But commercial jet fuel cannot differ much from kerosene chemically and still meet the aircraft and engine certification standards, so the carbon content of the fuel itself will necessarily be comparable.
The environmental risk of jet airplanes has nothing to do with in air exhaust. Rather the planes on the ground leak JP 4 or JP 5 on the tarmac which is why places that are former military bases are major clean up sites. I spent 5 years in the Navy flying out of Alameda. Lots of spills.
There’s a big difference between military and civilian aircraft.
There’s also a big difference between aircraft designed to fly at several times the speed of sound vs those that fly well below the speed of sound.
But no difference in the way the engines work.
It’s not the engines that leak, it’s the storage systems.
So where does the money paid as CARBON offset end up ? I assume the farmers in Mali get nothing.
Who is the recipient ? Does any Showcase projects using this money exist.
Or is the UN just using it to plug their money holes ?
It gets nowhere near the UN. The recipients are the Investment banks.
Merry Christmas to you. Actually, the money goes directly to the climate, which in turn promises to heat up by 0.0001 degrees less. Fahrenheit, Celsius, who cares?
Kind of like paying to name a star, or selling rocks as pets. It’s a stupid-tax.
A lot of times they identify activities that were already being done for reasons unrelated to CO2, such as planting trees after harvesting lumber, and magically transmogrify those expenses into a revenue stream. Which means that no real carbon sink was added, other than the fat around the scammers’ waistline.
Even when it works as designed, to eliminate some CO2 emissions, the basic idea is to part fools from their money to buy solar panels and then take more OPM selling unreliable power at a government mandated price. The average rate-payer bears most of the brunt of the expense to enrich the scammers.
UN IPCC SR 15 states that the goal of net zero emissions by 2050 “would require unprecedented changes in our lifestyle, energy and transport systems,” effectively a global economic and social revolution.
There is no indication that the transport industry particularly aviation is going to pass into history to satisfy the revolutionaries!
..for everyone but China, India, and the developing world
UN/IPCC but a $c@m in place that guarantees they will continue to increase CO2
It sounds a bit like paying someone else to go on a diet for you….
It sounds a bit like paying someone else to go on a diet for you….
Yes! I love this idea… we can expand upon this in many creative ways. Think “fat credits”: people who are overweight pay by the pound. People at healthy weights receive credits (or subsidies). In this way, the obese can repay the fitter people for the excess burden being obese puts on public health systems. Eat as much as you want, and just buy credits to absolve your personal responsibility!
💥… /s (is it even needed?)
I think smokers already do this.
Smokers pay a hefty smoker’s tax which is funneled into healthcare, so that the healthy people don’t have to pay as much for healthcare.
Not sure where the alcohol tax goes.
In Australia and New Zealand taxes on goods like smokes and booze go in to a “consolidated” fund, never to be seen for the purpose they were imposed for.
And of course that’s the reality in the US as well, no matter how many “trust funds” and “lock boxes” the Democrats dream up to justify their next raid on our wallets.
When the tobacco industry was forced to shell out billions of dollars to various government entities, that money was supposed to be used for anti-smoking campaigns and health related services. It was reported that the City of Los Angeles used their share to repair sidewalks…..
Fat credits? I thought it was a great idea!
It sounds a lot like paying someone else to go on a diet for you….
So many commenters are reinforcing the climate fraud. It’s All SNIP !
As with pretty much everything else associated with the noise of solving the “climate crisis”, it is pure virtue signaling. And for that, we should be grateful! At the end of the day, nothing will actually change and our freedoms will not be impinged upon.
It’s the same reason nothing of consequence happens at the climate conferences- nice virtue signaling, but no country is actually going to commit to ruining their economy for a supposed climate boogeyman
Even folks on vacation claim they pay climate offset to various organizations.
While tips to cabin crew are extremely rare and as far as I remember, drivers get none.
A really cool way to thank for the smooth ride.
“Daniel Turner: If climate change is an existential threat, as Democrats claim, then THIS is our only option”
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/daniel-turner-if-climate-change-an-existential-threat-as-democrats-claim-then-here-is-our-only-option
Interesting POV……
As long as he doesn’t go over the carbon budget it should be ok I guess
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/09/21/boondoggle/
Confidence Scheme:
We, the middle class, are the climate change confidence scheme’s “marks.”
You too can continue to use fossil fuel guilt free — just become a Co2-deluded-eco-warrior.
Hypocrisy is the new integrity.
… ethical fluidity, you know.
Spare the Green, Plan a child. Ethics and corruption.
Keep the oceans blue and the skies light.
It is not just the ultra rich, it is all liberals and I know many who have no problem flying all over, they are all hypocrites.
CO2 offsets itself, by greening the planet. No need to plant trees as offsets, nature does it herself. There ya go, billionaire leftist, you can be guilt free knowing your jet fuel contains built in offsets.
Mark your own logic is flawed its either up there for 50-200 years therefore its a waste of time or it circulates hits the ground and is not there for 50 to 200 years therefore no problem?
pick a side
Where in the atmosphere CO2 resides and how long it resides in the atmosphere are totally independent topics.
The actual science shows that the residence time for CO2 is closer to 10-15 years.
It is absolutely a religion.
A religion, a moral philosophy or behavioral protocol, with deference to, and prostration before, mortal gods. Accompanied by a quasi-faith, or rather a conflation of logical domains, ideology, traditions, and secular incentives.
Daddy and his daughter are just walking into their club for lunch and a game of tennis.
Rich Little Girl: ‘Daddy, I’m worried about the ‘carbon pollution’ your jet makes,” and she luxuriates in the feelings of virtue and superiority she experiences as she says it.
Daddy: ‘Darling, your commie teachers were right to scare you about carbon dioxide. What should we do?’
Rich Little Girl: ‘We could fly on public transport, Daddy.’
Daddy: ‘Oh, Darling, there are smelly people on public transport. We couldn’t possibly.’
Rich Little Girl: ‘Well, my friend Ophelia said her daddy buys something called ‘carbon offsets’.’
Daddy: ‘Yes, we can do that, Darling. It’s just pocket change for me. And the good thing is that if everyone is forced to buy them it will add to the cost of travel, and every extra dollar added to the cost of travel means fewer and fewer smelly people clogging up the places we like to visit.
Rich Little Girl: ‘Thank you, Daddy. I can’t wait to tell my teacher about it. She will be so impressed.’
And as they wander into the club the girl is heard to say: ‘Daddy, when we next go to the airport do you think we could wander through the terminal to see what it is like.’
Daddy: ‘Sure, Darling. It will be just like that visit to the zoo we did last week.’
Good that you used pseudonyms so that you didn’t identify the father & daughter as Mr Thunberg and Greta.
(but I think I may have just undone your good work 🙁
Keep in mind, too, that we’re not just talking about air travel. The Left are slowly moving towards pricing people out of private cars and onto public transport. Well, not all people. They seem to feel they should be exempted, because, after all, the ruling class have important work to do and shouldn’t be distracted from it.
I hear Greta has had a film crew with her ever since her early days striking from school. I understand they are making a full documentary about her, from day one of her protests. It’s for a streaming service called Hulu. How can that be? How can a film crew be there at the very start of her school strike to today unless it was planned?
The carbon credit (CCs) logic constantly fails. Everything we do produces CO2, from the breath of the workers if nothing else. (for now we’ll just ignore the whole carbon =/= CO2)
So with CCs we somehow decide that X is low on carbon production so they get ‘credits’ they can then ‘sell’ to those who produce lots of carbon. (Y) But who decides that X gets ‘credits’ for not producing carbon? After all, their product might be inherently low on carbon production and X is actually producing way more than they should for their process.
Then there’s another fail. Y does not somehow go out-of-pocket for having to purchase ‘credits’ – they simply pass it down to the People – the ONLY sources of wealth on the entire planet and the ones who cannot afford to pay more than they already are.
So they (the People) have to cut back on what they purchase, so both X and Y then sell less, and in these days of weird economics where utilities paid for by the People have to somehow make a profit FROM those People (economic rationalism) and where the entire world economy and monetary system is 100% reliant on an ever-expanding market and profits, that puts the entire planetary system into freefall.
I’m not sure which side of the knife edge our world will fall on but I DO know the ones who will bear the brunt are the only sources of wealth on the planet – the People who are being right royally shafted by the greedy cesspool types living in the muck of the swamp.
You and I will die in our billions but the scum floating on our work and trust already have their plans on where they will go and who they will let live.
And then the the scum floating on our work suddenly find that they have to empty their own chamber pots because there are no maids to do for them…
Need to stoke the socialists in the climate crisis crowd. The rich have more so they should do more to end the crises: pay for carbon offsets (planting trees, constructing solar, whatever that means), AND give up flying. No more carbon emissions means no more carbon emissions. From those according to their ability, and all that. Think of the children. Save the earth. No exceptions.
Get the left fighting the left.
We can but dream of extinction rebellion picketing hollywood movies but it’s a pleasant dream. 😀
Green = hypocrite. Only others need to actually do something unpleasant…