I thought to myself: "Someone who cared could probably have got a train from most of Europe to Davos!"

Then I thought about the sort of people that go to these things, and how long the train takes. They're oh so terribly important (sarcasm), that they simply cannot afford the time lost by traveling in anything other than a jet.

And that I think is the problem - from the Davos-attendee right down to you and I with our cars + central heating/air-con: we all want things to improve, but we also all value (consciously or otherwise) our own comfort/time/convenience more

"Well OF COURSE most people should take the train to Davos. Absolutely! Its the climate friendly choice! I had to take a jet though because I am very busy."

Or if they were stuck with us, they'd work on better options being made available on the train.

I think the problem is security. Here in Switzerland, there's demos in various cities and also of course at Davos. If you would put them in trains, it would be harder to do it safely.

(of course, why they even need so much security is another thing)

At some point, they'll have to be escorted by the military wherever they go, as more and more people will get angry at their unwillingness to fight (if not their contribution to) the ecological collapse.

I hope it isn't too late to escape this vicious cycle.

That this level of security is needed to protect the wealthy elites from the masses really should make you think about how absurd the concentration of wealth and power is.

Many companies bought a security and business continuity review and as a result the CEO must fly personal jet.

They must? But who decided, exactly? Should they really be in charge if their decisions are bad for everyone? Shouldn't the people have the last word on such matter -- in a democracy at least?

Such a review is usually bought from an independent consulting company. Of course it is BS, yet nobody can do anything.

Exactly this! There was a good TED talk by Hans Rosling saying, basically, people in developing economies want washing machines (just like you).

That is why I suspect the only solutions to climate change are:

* Develop an energy source which has a lower-cost and equal practicality to carbon-emitting sources, or

* Find a way to mitigate the effects of carbon emissions.

Otherwise, conservation in rich countries is just going to be replaced by consumption of the now cheaper oil/coal in developing ones.

I don't think it is realistic to ask people with far fewer conveniences (washing machines) to abandon their hopes of a better life by conserving (if people won't give up private jets, can you really expect much poorer people to give up more necessary conveniences?)

It’s not just hard, it’s also pointless unless we all do it together. If these people had refrained from making the trip, it would have no real impact on climate change. It’s a collective action problem.

That's defeatist. Small changes are not the only things that matter but saying "everything or nothing" is not helpful. The collective change that's needed to effect change begins with individual steps, like not taking a private plane when commercial will do.

Or even better- not flying at all and attending the conference virtually. Climate conferences and talks so frequently are held in resort towns- it should not be a getaway. Reserve some conference rooms and have everyone dial in! We have the technology.

boom dis rite here

I’m not saying “everything or nothing.” I’m saying that we need to work together to make large changes. Getting governments to phase out coal faster is useful even though it’s far from the “everything” of getting rid of all fossil fuel use. Getting a few rich people to fly less is, on the other hand, not useful.

I can’t think of a single case in human history where indiduals acting alone made a real difference in widespread issues like climate change. So suggesting it starts with individual steps seems wildly inaccurate.

Someone has to go first. If not you, then who? Everything starts with someone going first.

And your actions do have an effect: by providing an example to others, making it more likely they too will participate; and economic, by reducing the income generated from the activity.

1/1,000,000,000 has no meaningful impact on any of those.

Silent Spring was written by a Rachel Carson and had real impact. However, her personal lifestyle was irrelevant.

PS: As to someone going first, that is not an issue when say a state adds a sales tax. In such cases the first person to pay the tax is a sign that it's already in place.

So I take it you don't believe in voting? Voting is nearly as worthless.

No one said your singular vote (with your wallet) would change everything. But just like voting you help push things in the right direction. And you can, with additional effort, influence more people to vote the same way as you.

Voting magnifies the impact of the individual. Consider the impact on the climate of 40,000 people completely eliminating their CO2 emissions. The difference would be impossible to measure, even if it was the top 40,000 emitters on the planet. Maybe you'd push back the time to hit 2 degrees of warming by a day or something.

Now consider the impact of the right 40,000 people voting differently in the 2016 US Presidential elections. All sorts of things would look very different, including action being taken to fight climate change.

One person can make a difference, by influencing others. But you have to be smart about it. You can't just decide to fly less, and then declare that you're making a difference because one person can make a difference.

Who? The government. Sign a treaty, pass a law, impose loads and loads of CO2 taxes. Impose sanctions on countries that won't fall in line.

On the contrary, big things are always started by individuals. I can't think of a single case where all nations have 'agreed' and magically solved some global issue.

First thing that comes to mind is Nazis. Imagine some American guy gearing up and landing in France all by himself instead of trying to get his government to intervene.

I think the point is somebody, somewhere, started the ball rolling with the various governments. Everyone in the government didn’t all wake up one morning and simultaneously decide to oppose the Nazis.

Somebody has to get it started, but they have to get something useful started. Trying to convince your government to fight the Nazis by writing editorials or calling members of Congress is useful. Trying to convince them by going to France to single-handedly fight the Wehrmacht is not useful.

Rich people flying less won't do anything to convince governments to fight climate change, so what's the point?

Sadly this isn't true. The changes required to make any significant difference would likely involve the end of capitalism as we know it, and thus they will never happen until a catastrophe occurs. You're living in a dreamworld if you think even something like the Paris accord is anywhere close. And climate change is just one small way in which we are ruining the world. Imagine what things will be like with 10 billion! Yet population control is taboo because fee fees. It's liberalism gone suicidal.

Someone has to set the example. Preferably someone influential.

Setting an example is neither necessary nor sufficient to solve the problem.

This is a silly and pointless conversation. The cost to the environment for 1500 jets once compared to the political improvements that could result is a drop in the bucket.

When those "political improvements" inevitably end up being a further continuation of the unsustainable capitalism status quo, I would rather they not try to improve anything.

I guess you don't live near sea-level, then.

I do in fact live in a city on the coast, the highest point in the entire urban area is ~35m above sea level.

So I am extremely conscious of what the effects of climate change will mean for me, and for anyone living similarly close to the sea and at sea-level.

Which is exactly why I don't think it matters what a bunch of stupendously wealthy capitalists can come up with. We need widespread systematic change, and it needs to come from the people, not the so-called elite. As has been shown before, the ideas and initiatives of the elite are very often explicitly harmful to the general population.

You realize that these are elected officials meeting in Davos right? As in, as literally as can be, "the people".

Meeting with Titans of industry and other high-end capitalists. It's an old boys club, patting each other on the back, doing favors.

So you want policy makers to not understand what they're making policy on?

I want them to listen to the whole people, not just the elite.

Air conditioning, at least, is a natural to pair with large grid connected photovoltaic setups. The times of the day when you'll have the heaviest AC compressor motor/fan motor load in watts is also when the sun is up.

Look an hourly demand curve chart for a central air conditioned house in Sacramento in mid summer, vs watt-hours produced during the same hours of the same day by a rooftop 10kW size pv system.

Sounds like you dont live in Florida. :)

Meaning that even when the Sun is no longer shining, the dewpoint is so high that what might have been a comfortable temperature with a breeze is actually felt as oppressively hot and will cause all sorts of fun mold growing in the home.

In the Southeast, AC is also about dehumidifying the air.

> The times of the day when you'll have the heaviest AC compressor motor/fan motor load in watts is also when the sun is up.

Not quite true, actually. Shifted by few hours.