If you really think these elites doing these things will mean a damn thing against the scope of global annual carbon output (the vast majority on an industrial scale for industrial purposes), you have sommething of a misunderstanding of the scope of the problem and its solutions. Elites doing any of those things is little more than bland symbolism and virtue signaling.

Bear in mind that it matters little if you use a bike yet at the same time live a largely modern life of comforts that all alone involves connecting yourself to a vast underlying system of production that uses colossal amounts of carbon.

If such logic is the general idea among commentators here, it's hard to take their ideas seriously.

I agree with the sentiment, but would this achieve anything? One big coal power plant likely generates more emissions than they do.

It might, indirectly, by giving them "skin in the game". Once personally inconvenienced by being forced to adopt green technologies, politicians may be more inclined to invest in making those technologies less inconvenient. We might see a surge in bicycle infrastructure funding, for example.

A nonsense hypothetical, of course; the primary issue with the "global elite" is that one cannot force them to do anything at all. If you could force them to sell their private jets, you could simply force them to pass eco-friendly laws directly.

They should also condemn China for building more coal plants than the rest of the world. (But I can't see that happening....)

Is this satire?

Yes. The two sentences do not follow each other. It's a very serious issue, but the proposed solution is not only unfeasable (evil will be evil) but mostly it just does not solve the problem at all.