LeSving wrote:
Biz jets are “evil” because they send out a whole lot of CO2 for the meager work they do, bringing a person from A to B. It’s the most inefficient way of transporting human beings in terms of CO2 emissions. Look, the world isn’t perfect in any way, shape or form, and neither is human kind or humanity. However, pretending to not “get” the logic behind discoloration of the skin of biz-jets, CO2 and activists, is at best dishonest.
Having worked in this industry for quite a while and maybe having seen how these planes are used quite often, I disagree. They are no different than the airliners which fly holiday makers (which can also be considered to be an evil act as “unnecessary”). Quite a few of them have multi roles, such as the Citation destroyed at Sylt which was used as an ambulance jet for organ transport and similar stuff when not used by the owner.
“Getting the logic” is the beginning of supporting the means. It is “easy” to “get the logic” behind a lot of stuff. Do I get the logic behind Russia’s attack on Ukraine? Do I get the logic of the concept of “Lebensraum” which was in part responsible to trigger WW2? Do I get the logic behind terrorists doing what they are doing? The answer to all of these is yes, in fact, without understanding the logic, you can’t counter them efficiently. But understanding and getting the logic does not mean to support them, but rather to see ways to eradicate folks who attack our way of life and our prosperity and society as such.
LeSving wrote:
The point is that flying biz-jets is bad for the global climate.
So is everything else in aviation. Hence, if you want to follow that logic, you will need to destroy aviation and quite a few other things too, not least cruise ships, personal cars and quite a lot of the world’s industry and livelyhood and in the end, you have to destroy quite a lot of PEOPLE in order to get to the goals they follow. All of those are “bad” for CO2, including your ULM’s. But wait, nooo your little toys don’t matter. But Biz jets do? Because you are not using them, they are of no use for you, so you will get rid of those first…. typical NIMBY type hypocricy.
Fact is that without prosperity there won’t be technologies to improve CO2 footprints because developing them costs real money. Fact is, that most people today will not forego the prosperity we have achieved with our hands work, with blood, sweat and tears, to follow some half baked idealism which, thought to the end, would have to reduce the population of this planet by at least half. If one of those morons tells me to my face “what a pity that Covid did not do the job of killing off half of the population” then I have to simply use a lot of restraint not to remove that particular guy from the CO2 pool right there and then.
It is extremely frustrating to see that people even in aviation foras buy into this rubbish and point fingers at fellow aviators and their daily bread, just as long as nothing happens to the flying lawnmowers they use themselves. Biz jets have a function in the economy, medicine and other uses, whereas small contraptions like ULM’s have no such use. Are you really naive enough to believe that once the ecofascists are done with biz jets they are going to leave you guys alone?
What these people are after is an eco-fascist dictatorship which, as the damage the Greens did in Germany show, will kill ALL prosperity on this planet, will throw the economy into a deep hole and will feed hatred and revolution. And we are not that far away from that even now.
But the same argument can be made concerning the ancient leaded fuel guzzling planes of a bygone era, the worst ones with twin engines – just compare them to the efficient UL designs we have today. Where do you draw the line?
If there isn’t actually a real world problem introduced by either business aircraft or piston powered aircraft, and there isn’t, you don’t fall victim to propaganda and you don’t draw the line at all.
The future of your children will be totally unaffected by the existence of either except that by living is a freer world they will undoubtedly have a higher standard of living. If you want to focus on issues that will actually affect your children’s future quality of life, focus on something else like the corruption that plagues most governments in the world, represses investment, and motivates people to have too many kids as a way fo support themselves in old age. Those extra millions of kids will be competing with yours for resources for the rest of their lives.
Well put, Mooney_Driver.
Just picked up a paper from last weekend… there’s a report in there.
The two protesters (both female) thought they knew the reg of the jet but could not find it, so they sprayed the paint onto some randomly selected jets.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Do I get the logic behind Russia’s attack on Ukraine?
Nice straw man’s argument. Putin’s fight only serves to maintain his own power and grasp. It’s not like the future of humanity is on the line, which is definitely the case for climate change.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
So is everything else in aviation.
True, but this applies to everything else outside aviation. There are two aspects of biz jets that attract specific attention (justified or not):
Again I’m not endorsing any destructive action. Just pointing out what IMO are very bad arguments ultimately doing a disservice to the debate.
Silvaire wrote:
victim to propaganda
I understand you’re a climate change denier. I personally think this is absolutely ridiculous position to take as there is too much evidence pointing towards the opposite, but this is not the question of this thread.
For the sake of the argument, let’s pretend it is real – and even then I still believe that you shouldn’t vandalize art or planes and the very second a very vocal minority comes and tries to tell me how to live and what to do, my first instinctive reaction is to tell them to get lost.
@Inkognito, sticking to the issues at hand, yes property rights and rule of law are the basis for a reasonable way of life. But do you actually believe that if business aviation were to be eliminated that the world would be a better place for your children? I think the opposite.
And do you actually believe that general aviation as it exists and thrives, apparently outside of your world is a “bygone era”? I know it in the here and now, all around me with 2,000 GA operations per day in my local county. I think there’s little chance of that changing in the future and I also know the world benefits from it.
BTW I now make most of income from the development of alternative fuel aircraft engines that make real horsepower, have a customer and will without doubt be produced in volume for a niche market. I will never own one because they are too expensive and likely always will be. Avgas creates no real world issues and IMHO discontinuing it is an entirely political issue focused on placating people who have lost touch with reality.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
“Getting the logic” is the beginning of supporting the means. It is “easy” to “get the logic” behind a lot of stuff. Do I get the logic behind Russia’s attack on Ukraine? Do I get the logic of the concept of “Lebensraum” which was in part responsible to trigger WW2? Do I get the logic behind terrorists doing what they are doing?
Your logic is obviously that those activists painting luxury toys are comparable to Hitler, Putin and other despots and terrorists. Good luck trying to be taken seriously with that attitude.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
It is extremely frustrating to see that people even in aviation foras buy into this rubbish and point fingers at fellow aviators and their daily bread, just as long as nothing happens to the flying lawnmowers they use themselves
Rubbish. I know a whole generation of engineers and scientists, personally many of them (more like two generations) changing work from oil and gas to “greener” stuff. They are all doing fine. Putin even made it possible for lots of them to stay or go back as well to prevent Western continental Europe freeze to death during the last winters. If those pilots you mentioned aren’t able to adapt to a changing world, that’s their problem, and theirs alone. Survival of the fittest rules, always. I mean seriously There’s no hiding from that fact of life. That and luck/unluck. Stuff happens in ways you had never imagined; adapt or die. Change causes opportunities, grab them.
I think it is obvious by now that I don’t care about “green” stuff. I think most of it is BS, especially the politics. The solution is clear, nuclear power. However, the world is what it is, and right now those activists have a strong hand of cards in western Europe. The simple fact that politicians won’t touch them even with a 2m long stick proves that. If messages like your post is what they are met with as the main opposition, then they have already won the battle. The fight is over.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
But wait, nooo your little toys don’t matter. But Biz jets do?
My little toy(s) can run for a whole day with what a biz-jet use to start up the engines. Besides, I maintain them myself and fly 100+ h per year. As explained, biz-jets are low hanging fruit, easy pick because of the extravagant pollution by individuals. In the big picture Boeings and Airbuses make for approximately 95% of the CO2. TP some 3-5% , and some infinite little amount for GA, all of GA. This includes biz jets making up most of that
Clearly the activists should have painted Boeings and Airbuses according to “normal logic”. But they aren’t. The reason is obvious, bad publicity and opposition from the average person. The collateral damage is unacceptable in other words, not good for their cause. The other direction, SEPs could be a target, except the silliness of it would be all too obvious.
The question for us private GA pilots is: What’s good for our cause? Do we even have a cause, a common cause, other than having a great time in the air (and on the ground) with our contraptions? I for one don’t see any other cause. But it’s a good cause. Good for heart and soul. Good for the spirit. Flying free as a bird is magic, and it’s shareable. Better focus on that, and stop feeding the trolls.
What’s good for our cause is offering flights to the neighbours
For those who know Harrods, the juxtaposition here is perfect
Off topic posts moved to the Climate Change thread etc.
LeSving wrote:
The question for us private GA pilots is: What’s good for our cause? Do we even have a cause, a common cause, other than having a great time in the air (and on the ground) with our contraptions?
That is a very good question particularly seeing how divided GA is. It horrifies me that a number of GA pilots are pretty much “ok” when biz jets are damaged or destroyed for the “eco cause” as long as their own little toy stays untouched. Well, never count your chickens… one of the destroyed planes so far was an Aztek. So it won’t be long before they attack also us. And you better not ask them what they think of us.
LeSving wrote:
I for one don’t see any other cause.
That is obvious.
LeSving wrote:
But it’s a good cause. Good for heart and soul. Good for the spirit. Flying free as a bird is magic, and it’s shareable.
As if that matters in the eyes of these people. Joy is a concept they don’t understand in their dystopic world view. Or maybe they do feel joy if they see destroyed airplanes… would not be the first whom I catch mumbling “good, one less” when seeing the news of a crashed GA plane or even airliner crashes.
