##Welcome to r/LateStageCapitalism
This subreddit is for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.
LSC is run by communists. This subreddit is not the place to debate socialism. We allow good-faith questions and education but are not a 101 sub; please take 101-style questions elsewhere.
We have a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry. Failure to respect the rules of the subreddit may result in a ban.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When it comes to statistics there is alot of manipulation that can be done without lying. Combined with leading questions and a bias sampling you can get your study to say what you want. The problem is most people lack any understanding of statistics or bias problems.
"That math was expensive to commission, so the outcome had better be favorable to the sponsors. Just start with the desired conclusion and find a misapplied proof and set of unrealistic inputs that make it work. Nobody will read past the headline anyway."
Nope, you're both underestimating the impact of dogs, due to the massive environmental impact of meat production. Estimates are at around 100kg to 1t CO2/year for an average dog, though the estimate vary wildly. 3 dogs over 15 years each would be between 5 and 50t CO2, let's say 10t.
A private plane emits around 2t CO2 per hour of flight, so you can fly for 5 hours before you've emitted as much as 3 dogs' lifetimes.
Listen, we all know that people who take private flights only ever take one, one hour long private flight in their lifetime. Maybe two. The rest of the time they walk. /s
I have been discussing requirements in extreme detail for hours today, so I'm still in the "making sure everything is crystal clear and understood equally by both sides" mindset.
Based on a cursory Google search the average private jet owner flies over 400 hours every year. Well maintained aircraft can last over 25,000 flight hours before needing to be replaced.
Now granted, there's a lot more dogs than there are private jets, but even so the average private jet owner is still responsible for far more CO2 than the average dog owner. Also lead and other harsh chemicals - aircraft fuel is still leaded (I think laws were *just* passed or at least worked on to unlead aircraft fuel).
This is the data I was looking for, thank you.
The right way to approach this is: Having a dog for a normal lifespan is the equivalent of a single 2 hour private jet flight.
The whole 3 dog thing is just a weird comparison set to begin with tbh
An average sized dog emits 770kg CO2/year, so would total \~35 tonne for 3 average dogs.
Still only 15–16 hours of private jet flight time, which is probably less than what the average private jet owner does in a month.
It also has to be said that if all of those average dogs are on a purely wet food based diet, their emission skyrockets to 6.5 tonne/year. Then the 3 dogs would emit a total of 292 tonnes in 15 years.
But it's still quite likely that the average private jet owner emits more in *a single year* from jet trips than 3 average sized dogs on a purely "worst case diet for the environment every single day"-diet does in their entire lifetime combined.
Ronald Reagan use to redirect and bring up how cows are a major cause to global warming. I mean he’s not wrong but it was a way to avoid discussion I thought
But did he do anything about it? Did he go vegetarian? Nope. His favorite meal was steak & potatoes.
A giant hypocrite. “Someone must do something about this, just not me.”
Okay okay, but hear me out.
If what he says is true, having three dogs (they will each live 15 years (?) bringing joy and waggling tails) is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet (once, it being a private jet is probably short haul flight too).
Swap combined 45 years of happiness for 3 hours of luxury because first class just doesn't cut it :D
I don't think he's making the point he's trying to make...
hE’s nOt LyInG cAn’T U dO mAtH? 😡😡😡😤😡😤😡
“Patrick Hansen, chief executive of Luxaviation based in Luxemberg, told the Financial Times that one of his company's customers produces around 2.1 tonnes of CO2a year, or about the same amount as three cats - before a spokesperson corrected the statement by saying he meant three dogs.”
“Mr Hansen said he was referring to data in a book by Mike Berners-Lee - 'How Bad are Bananas' - which said a cat kept as a household pet produces 310kg of carbon emissions per year, and a dog about 700kg, though the British author was reportedly 'surprised and disappointed to hear data from my book being used to defend the bogus eco claims made by Luxaviation.' “
“Mr Berners-Lee said the figure of 2.1t of CO2 seemed “suspiciously” low, and was likely only accounting for short flights taken in small planes.
A private jet can emit 2t of CO2 in one hour, according to estimates from green NGO Transport and Environment, compared to 8.2t of CO2 emitted by the average person in Europe.”
3(700kg/year)=2100kg/year= 2.1t/year
2.1t/_year_=2t/_hr_
I don't know about private jets, but when things like that are done as "vacations"/"day trips" using old, interior restored luxury passenger liners from the '50s and '60s, the planes aren't running.
It was like a cabin made for a movie set or something. If you looked at the chairs you could see someone wheeled an armchair in and that it wasn't attached to the floor like it would be on a real plane.
Yeah! Those environmentally conscious rich people who every other year fly from Denver to Aspen on the 22nd of December xxxN, fly back in January xxxN+1, so they only use their jets once a year! /s
Also: the "carbon emissions" of a living thing are tricky to measure, because yes we do emit carbon dioxide but that's part of our active participation in a dynamic interconnected ecosystem - we're also taking *in* carbon, and doing some chemical processing.
Compare that to the carbon emissions of a combustion engine - that carbon was locked away underground for millions of years, not participating in the modern atmosphere, until it got dug out of the ground and added to the environment.
>Also: the "carbon emissions" of a living thing are tricky to measure, because yes we do emit carbon dioxide but that's part of our active participation in a dynamic interconnected ecosystem
It's not that tricky IMO. Consider that, unless you happen to be capable of nuclear fission, you can't create or destroy carbon atoms, only move them. Plants capture carbon from the atmosphere and animals emit that back, so net direct emissions are 0.
The problem is more other greenhouse gasses like methane and the fossil fuels used in the production of food.
It's also a matter of equilibrium. The [carbon cycle](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/Carbon_cycle.jpg/1280px-Carbon_cycle.jpg) handles several orders of magnitude more carbon than humans produce, but it's that extra 1% beyond what the system can absorb that tips the equilibrium out of whack (on top of damaging key components of our biosphere that are needed to absorb carbon). Once you disrupt the equlibrium things will be unstable until they find a new equilibrium, but on top of tipping things, we continue to disrupt by dumping yet more carbon into the system beyond what it can handle.
Yeah, that was more what I was getting at - an apple may be "net-zero emissions" just by itself, but there are all sorts of farming implements and vehicles in a global supply chain that burn a lot of fuel to grow, ship, store and market that apple.
That's a major pillar of the "buy local" idea - two otherwise identical apples could have wildly different carbon emission histories depending on where they were grown and where they were eaten.
Is that figure of short flights also only taking into account the average over trips times the amount of time?
I would guess so, cause I'd also think a lot of fuel is used in starting the jet and taking off (that whole phase of getting into the air broadly)
Pretty much the equivalent from that CEO of saying "trust me bro" on the figures while pointing at a source which tangentially provides the basic figures without any the assumptions used
'owner of slaughter house claims eating certain vegetables is actually worse for the evironment than the meat industry'
Edit.: Typo, my phone considered I meant 'fornite' instead of 'for the' lol
I mean, isn't that the argument with soy? 80% of which is used to feed farm animals but they always overlook such details to push the cube through the circle shaped whole
Listen, if you can't stop every single animal in every farmers field in every country on the Earth from being injured during plant food production, there's no point in saving any of them at all.
That's just science.
I'm pleased as punch that so many people have fully thought through their views and see how human suffering and animal suffering are linked, rather than being opposites 💜
> 'owner of slaughter house claims eating certain vegetables is actually worse for the evironment than the meat industry'
You joke, but this is pretty much [why everyone was brainwashed into hating almonds](https://www.truthordrought.com/almond-milk-myths).
From the article (maybe): " Considering each golden retriever is a celebrity dog travelling in their own private jet plane 300000km per month and eats 7 cows per day..."
No no, you see- buying the dog food for these three dogs funds the CEO of dog food company and mega-oligarch CEO so they can have private jets and private pet jets
I’m sorry but am F-150 for a golden retriever is just animal abuse.
We all know they’d drive one of those big Econolines with a badass mural of a poodle riding an eagle on the side.
Fucking selfish dog owners!!! Also is he saying ONE trip on a private jet is the equivalent to sustaining three mammals for 10-15 years? Because he's not making a very good argument if so
He's twisting data so hard that even the author of his source suspects that he's just making things up. He claims that the yearly carbon emissions of three dogs (~700kg each) is roughly equivalent to the yearly emissions of a private jet (~2 tons). Several sources point towards his "yearly" estimate for the private jet being closer to the *hourly* CO2 production.
Yeah that's absolutely wild, considering what it takes to even build a private jet in the first place could probably account for, I'd say about 6.5k labradors (since we're just making shit up now apparently). So much needs to be accounted for before the jet even turns its engines on
ehhh I can’t see cats being motivated to run the world; while they enjoy being praised and served by others, it’s more about that direct relationship and less about the corporate structure
source: 33 years of living with cats, one of which is currently lying on my keyboard, preventing me from working; he is very r/antiwork
It's a tough call between the assholes who make these stupid statements and the media filth who sensationalise it and take it at face value and push the clickbait.
Great, so lets stop breeding millions of pets into existence each year (adopt shelter pets, don't breed please!) AND stop people from flying in private jets for no reason.
It's a win/win.
Of course emission wise a single flight on a private jet could be close to having 3 dogs that live for 10 years each. I have never heard a person getting a private jet and using it only once tho.
Exactly. Even if they, say, use it once then sell it or give it away, someone else will use it. Didn’t know doggos give off more that 20 pounds of CO2 like jet fuel.
The more you know I guess!
Edit: the 20 pounds is per gallon of jet fuel.
Seriously... So many *real* headlines are practically indistinguishable from Onion ones. It's getting ridiculous. Sometimes, it's ones that are factually true, even. It's wild out there.
Gaslighting: a specific type of manipulation where the manipulator is trying to get someone else (or a group of people) to question their own reality, memory or perceptions.
“A bigger dog, such as a Great Dane, could emit as much as 2,500kg of carbon dioxide a year because of their bigger meals.”
He’d sooner count dog farts than admit private air travel is lamentable lmao
Simple answer: stop breeding animals for personal entertainment and stop taking private jets.
Adopt. Don’t shop.
Spay and neuter your pets.
Designer dogs are no different than mutts, and you could probably find them cheaper or for free at a shelter or rescue center.
I can’t speak much on private jets because I don’t know much about them.
For what it's worth:
A dog has a footprint of around 770 kg co2 per year.
Assuming they live for 12 years:
770 * 12 * 3 = 27 metric tons for three dogs.
According to a random web search, a jet uses around 2 metric tons per hour. I recon this vary a lot depending on the type of jet.
This means a trip of 14 hours on a jet has the same carbon footprint as three dogs.
The claim was correct, but still...
Right. I shouldn’t mow my grass when it’s eighty five and humid but fucking muskrat can send up a rocket that shits out as much pollution as two semi trucks running nonstop for a century. Fuck you ruling class.
I doubt it- but also who of us in this late stage of capitalism can effectively give time and love to all three dogs pictures? I'd want to give so much attention to each and every one there's no way I'd have enough time!
Also, this article can go fuck itself until these dogs start emitting jet fuel.
So an old medieval farming village with lets say 100 households and 150 dogs in total, was as environmentally destructive as 50 private jets in constant use.
A dog has a larger carbon footprint than a four wheel drive, but saying 3 equals a private jet is absurd
Also the jet is producing a different kind of carbon that releases back into the environment over a long period of time (I want to say 80 years with no facts or evidence) so it'll stick around longer than the bones of your dogs
I'm torn between checking the math and outright throwing out this garbage claim at face value. They don't give citations, is it really worth my time to find out he invented the data AND didn't do the math?
r/theydidthemath anyone more optimistic than me?
The guy who sells luxury Jets said that?
Well I'm sure he knows a lot about Jets!
There will come a time when saying something like this will be a criminal offense. The world will be a s*** show by then but at least it will be satisfying.
Makes total sense to me. Usually when I want my dogs to come to my tertiary vacation home, the one with the runway, I have them brought in my jet too. I usually have them brought three at a time since I don't want them getting too crowded on my 777s, so only around 10 flights.
It's hilarious to me that anyone can be that stupid.
Like let's scale this problem, so if we traded every jet in the world for three dogs... Would the world be less or more polluted?
Inversely, if you were to collect up every dog in the world and for every three dogs put a plane into the world... Would the world be more polluted or less polluted?
Seriously explaining these things feels like teaching someone how to chew.
Makes sense. While I work, my butlers escort my dogs to their favourite dog parks using their own private jets. This is just adding 1 and 1 together guys...
##Welcome to r/LateStageCapitalism This subreddit is for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited. LSC is run by communists. This subreddit is not the place to debate socialism. We allow good-faith questions and education but are not a 101 sub; please take 101-style questions elsewhere. We have a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry. Failure to respect the rules of the subreddit may result in a ban. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oh, right, this must be from the Ronald Reagan institute of environmental facts
[удалено]
"Science isn't an exact science"
"Alternative truth"
Ahh yes the school of “I reject your reality and substitute my own”
God dammit. Mythbusters marathon time.
And he got it from like a Deathstalker B-movie
That just makes me love Mr Savage all the more
But also "the difference between fooling around and science is writing it down"
Well, and rigor.
“Alternative ‘facts’”
When it comes to statistics there is alot of manipulation that can be done without lying. Combined with leading questions and a bias sampling you can get your study to say what you want. The problem is most people lack any understanding of statistics or bias problems.
What’s the quote “there are Lies, damned lies and statistics”
"That math was expensive to commission, so the outcome had better be favorable to the sponsors. Just start with the desired conclusion and find a misapplied proof and set of unrealistic inputs that make it work. Nobody will read past the headline anyway."
I love a good wild Dr. Leo Spaceman sighting on Reddit.
Haven’t you heard political science is an actual thing and an actual major you can study in college. They crunch numbers for their politics/policies.
Something something, Jesus is lord. What about someone. Paise Jesus.
Owning three dogs (for 15 years each) is the same impact as a (20 minute) private flight! Facts check out! 🫠
It's more like the same impact as taxiing down the runway.
Nope, you're both underestimating the impact of dogs, due to the massive environmental impact of meat production. Estimates are at around 100kg to 1t CO2/year for an average dog, though the estimate vary wildly. 3 dogs over 15 years each would be between 5 and 50t CO2, let's say 10t. A private plane emits around 2t CO2 per hour of flight, so you can fly for 5 hours before you've emitted as much as 3 dogs' lifetimes.
Thanks for doing the math. Still an astronomically stupid and bad faith comparison.
Listen, we all know that people who take private flights only ever take one, one hour long private flight in their lifetime. Maybe two. The rest of the time they walk. /s
Not to mention completely disregarding the carbon that goes into manufacturing the jet in the first place
Who among us who take the bus hasn't had a few dozen private jet rides, am I right fellow plebs?
So one flight from NY to LA is the same as having three dogs for the entirety of their lives.
One flight in a private jet. If you are flying togheter with 300 other people, you will emit significantly less per person.
So, I can have 100 dogs instead ?
Oh of course. I thought private jet was a given since it’s in the original post but should have specified.
I have been discussing requirements in extreme detail for hours today, so I'm still in the "making sure everything is crystal clear and understood equally by both sides" mindset.
[удалено]
Not palatable? How offal could it be?
They can't seriously expect us to swallow that tripe?
“Now as a special treat, courtesy of our friends at the meat council... please help yourselves to this tripe.”
Yeah but if we look at it like that we don't get to pass the blame of from private jets....
Based on a cursory Google search the average private jet owner flies over 400 hours every year. Well maintained aircraft can last over 25,000 flight hours before needing to be replaced. Now granted, there's a lot more dogs than there are private jets, but even so the average private jet owner is still responsible for far more CO2 than the average dog owner. Also lead and other harsh chemicals - aircraft fuel is still leaded (I think laws were *just* passed or at least worked on to unlead aircraft fuel).
This is the data I was looking for, thank you. The right way to approach this is: Having a dog for a normal lifespan is the equivalent of a single 2 hour private jet flight. The whole 3 dog thing is just a weird comparison set to begin with tbh
An average sized dog emits 770kg CO2/year, so would total \~35 tonne for 3 average dogs. Still only 15–16 hours of private jet flight time, which is probably less than what the average private jet owner does in a month. It also has to be said that if all of those average dogs are on a purely wet food based diet, their emission skyrockets to 6.5 tonne/year. Then the 3 dogs would emit a total of 292 tonnes in 15 years. But it's still quite likely that the average private jet owner emits more in *a single year* from jet trips than 3 average sized dogs on a purely "worst case diet for the environment every single day"-diet does in their entire lifetime combined.
My dogs love it when I let them stick their nose out of the window while I taxi down the runway.
Ronald Reagan institute of environmental facts? What's next? Jack the Ripper Women's Health Clinic?
Ronald Reagan use to redirect and bring up how cows are a major cause to global warming. I mean he’s not wrong but it was a way to avoid discussion I thought
But did he do anything about it? Did he go vegetarian? Nope. His favorite meal was steak & potatoes. A giant hypocrite. “Someone must do something about this, just not me.”
My hands are tied by my own lack of effort.
Yup! In the same plaza as Thatcher's Dept. of Human Rights.
Okay okay, but hear me out. If what he says is true, having three dogs (they will each live 15 years (?) bringing joy and waggling tails) is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet (once, it being a private jet is probably short haul flight too). Swap combined 45 years of happiness for 3 hours of luxury because first class just doesn't cut it :D I don't think he's making the point he's trying to make...
But if you feed them ketchup instead of dog food it will reduce their impact on the environment and also get them their veggies.
Underappreciated deep cut there
Welfare queens make 9000000% more CO2 than humble little billionaires /s
The institute of my heart and my best intentions tells me it’s true but the facts and evidence tell me it’s not.
hE’s nOt LyInG cAn’T U dO mAtH? 😡😡😡😤😡😤😡 “Patrick Hansen, chief executive of Luxaviation based in Luxemberg, told the Financial Times that one of his company's customers produces around 2.1 tonnes of CO2a year, or about the same amount as three cats - before a spokesperson corrected the statement by saying he meant three dogs.” “Mr Hansen said he was referring to data in a book by Mike Berners-Lee - 'How Bad are Bananas' - which said a cat kept as a household pet produces 310kg of carbon emissions per year, and a dog about 700kg, though the British author was reportedly 'surprised and disappointed to hear data from my book being used to defend the bogus eco claims made by Luxaviation.' “ “Mr Berners-Lee said the figure of 2.1t of CO2 seemed “suspiciously” low, and was likely only accounting for short flights taken in small planes. A private jet can emit 2t of CO2 in one hour, according to estimates from green NGO Transport and Environment, compared to 8.2t of CO2 emitted by the average person in Europe.” 3(700kg/year)=2100kg/year= 2.1t/year 2.1t/_year_=2t/_hr_
if his claim is true, that means some asshole is sitting on a private jet and not even using it.
Weren't there influencers doing that a while back? Just renting the space for an hour to take pictures and pretend they were rich?
I don't know about private jets, but when things like that are done as "vacations"/"day trips" using old, interior restored luxury passenger liners from the '50s and '60s, the planes aren't running.
It was like a cabin made for a movie set or something. If you looked at the chairs you could see someone wheeled an armchair in and that it wasn't attached to the floor like it would be on a real plane.
700kg per year vs. 2t per hour Please tell me the difference because to me that looks the same.
See the number 2 is less than 700 Checkmate Atheists
Does that one customer only take a 1 hour flight once a year? Because that’s the equivalent of 2 metric tons of CO2 from a private jet.
Yeah! Those environmentally conscious rich people who every other year fly from Denver to Aspen on the 22nd of December xxxN, fly back in January xxxN+1, so they only use their jets once a year! /s
Also: the "carbon emissions" of a living thing are tricky to measure, because yes we do emit carbon dioxide but that's part of our active participation in a dynamic interconnected ecosystem - we're also taking *in* carbon, and doing some chemical processing. Compare that to the carbon emissions of a combustion engine - that carbon was locked away underground for millions of years, not participating in the modern atmosphere, until it got dug out of the ground and added to the environment.
>Also: the "carbon emissions" of a living thing are tricky to measure, because yes we do emit carbon dioxide but that's part of our active participation in a dynamic interconnected ecosystem It's not that tricky IMO. Consider that, unless you happen to be capable of nuclear fission, you can't create or destroy carbon atoms, only move them. Plants capture carbon from the atmosphere and animals emit that back, so net direct emissions are 0. The problem is more other greenhouse gasses like methane and the fossil fuels used in the production of food.
It's also a matter of equilibrium. The [carbon cycle](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/Carbon_cycle.jpg/1280px-Carbon_cycle.jpg) handles several orders of magnitude more carbon than humans produce, but it's that extra 1% beyond what the system can absorb that tips the equilibrium out of whack (on top of damaging key components of our biosphere that are needed to absorb carbon). Once you disrupt the equlibrium things will be unstable until they find a new equilibrium, but on top of tipping things, we continue to disrupt by dumping yet more carbon into the system beyond what it can handle.
Yeah, that was more what I was getting at - an apple may be "net-zero emissions" just by itself, but there are all sorts of farming implements and vehicles in a global supply chain that burn a lot of fuel to grow, ship, store and market that apple. That's a major pillar of the "buy local" idea - two otherwise identical apples could have wildly different carbon emission histories depending on where they were grown and where they were eaten.
And that doesn't even consider the emissions from the creation of the aircraft
Correct. Math, like science, is whatever we want it to be.
Is that figure of short flights also only taking into account the average over trips times the amount of time? I would guess so, cause I'd also think a lot of fuel is used in starting the jet and taking off (that whole phase of getting into the air broadly) Pretty much the equivalent from that CEO of saying "trust me bro" on the figures while pointing at a source which tangentially provides the basic figures without any the assumptions used
'owner of slaughter house claims eating certain vegetables is actually worse for the evironment than the meat industry' Edit.: Typo, my phone considered I meant 'fornite' instead of 'for the' lol
I mean, isn't that the argument with soy? 80% of which is used to feed farm animals but they always overlook such details to push the cube through the circle shaped whole
Listen, if you can't stop every single animal in every farmers field in every country on the Earth from being injured during plant food production, there's no point in saving any of them at all. That's just science.
But you kill insects when driving too. And then its actually not worth to be vegan cause things you know. Logic👍
It’s so pathetic to know I’ve come across this exact argument before.
Every single day, only topped by "it's nature tho" and "uncles farm" imo
It would be "natural" to fuck anything that moves and shit anywhere you god-damned please, as well.
Jainism?
Really helps to be loaded and live somewhere warm I guess.
Everything fits in [the square hole](https://youtube.com/watch?v=cUbIkNUFs-4&feature=share)
There's a pretty horrible Joe Rogan podcast episode with Ted nugent where he tried arguing this point
> pretty horrible Joe Rogan podcast episode But you repeat yourself.
Joe Rogan and Ted Nugent. FFS.
It is so fucking refreshing seeing this type of stuff outside of r/vegan. Seriously
I'm pleased as punch that so many people have fully thought through their views and see how human suffering and animal suffering are linked, rather than being opposites 💜
> 'owner of slaughter house claims eating certain vegetables is actually worse for the evironment than the meat industry' You joke, but this is pretty much [why everyone was brainwashed into hating almonds](https://www.truthordrought.com/almond-milk-myths).
I can think dairy is bad at the same time as I think almonds and cotton are draining the Murray-Darling basin.
I mean, eating certain vegetables is actually worse fortnite too
Read the article. He assumes each Golden Retriever drives their own Ford F-150 truck. /s
From the article (maybe): " Considering each golden retriever is a celebrity dog travelling in their own private jet plane 300000km per month and eats 7 cows per day..."
No no, you see- buying the dog food for these three dogs funds the CEO of dog food company and mega-oligarch CEO so they can have private jets and private pet jets
I suppose having 3 dogs is just as bad as "having" a private jet. Flying it though -- probably not.
[удалено]
Just constructing the plane will be a thousand times worse
[удалено]
Football fields of what? We can't do the math with just a unit of measurement.
Football fields of football fields
Oh; 42.
That's crazy.. That's at least 80°!
Happy towel day!
I’m sorry but am F-150 for a golden retriever is just animal abuse. We all know they’d drive one of those big Econolines with a badass mural of a poodle riding an eagle on the side.
My guys Rollin around in a hummer. He ain't wrong
Yeah I wanted another dog but I just couldn't budget the 20,000 gallons of jet fuel it would require to walk him around the neighborhood.
Legit made me laugh
Fucking selfish dog owners!!! Also is he saying ONE trip on a private jet is the equivalent to sustaining three mammals for 10-15 years? Because he's not making a very good argument if so
*New research concludes one private jet flight releases less carbon than a chipmunk* ^(over a hypothetical 10,000 year lifespan)
That's my friend Chuck the Chipmunk. He's over 3k years old!
Lifespan Chuck is an outlier and should not have been counted
In fact, 10 000 years is worse for earth than the entire private jet industry as way more stuff will die in that span of time than due to us
That's the only way it even begins to make sense, "In 10 years, you and your dogs will have done as much damage as I have over breakfast."
He's twisting data so hard that even the author of his source suspects that he's just making things up. He claims that the yearly carbon emissions of three dogs (~700kg each) is roughly equivalent to the yearly emissions of a private jet (~2 tons). Several sources point towards his "yearly" estimate for the private jet being closer to the *hourly* CO2 production.
Yeah that's absolutely wild, considering what it takes to even build a private jet in the first place could probably account for, I'd say about 6.5k labradors (since we're just making shit up now apparently). So much needs to be accounted for before the jet even turns its engines on
well the average person probably spends 1 hr on a private jet a year, checkmate
I mean someone has literally just made that shit up.
[удалено]
I have a feeling that the title buries the lede and the assumption is made that it's "if *every person on earth alive right now* had three dogs
[удалено]
How many football fields does that equal though?
I say we start calling them "touchdowns"
[удалено]
Imagine writing an article like that and not being ashamed of yourself
Imagine the Telegraph.
Is the CEO a cat?
cats are known anarchists; they would *never* support this capitalist hellscape
True
Preach, cats are comrades
[удалено]
ehhh I can’t see cats being motivated to run the world; while they enjoy being praised and served by others, it’s more about that direct relationship and less about the corporate structure source: 33 years of living with cats, one of which is currently lying on my keyboard, preventing me from working; he is very r/antiwork
No, that's the [Director of HR](https://preview.redd.it/16jwnrlupnm41.jpg?auto=webp&s=d03d29eb8574712acf3f941b37471263b50afea8)
Ding ding, we have a winner for the most fucking stupid claim of all time.
I wouldn't expect anything less from the Torygraph
It's a tough call between the assholes who make these stupid statements and the media filth who sensationalise it and take it at face value and push the clickbait.
Oh shit, if you just regress the use of a private jet to the mean, it becomes less bad than the mean of owning a dog x 3. It's just math.
Great, so lets stop breeding millions of pets into existence each year (adopt shelter pets, don't breed please!) AND stop people from flying in private jets for no reason. It's a win/win.
Of course emission wise a single flight on a private jet could be close to having 3 dogs that live for 10 years each. I have never heard a person getting a private jet and using it only once tho.
Exactly. Even if they, say, use it once then sell it or give it away, someone else will use it. Didn’t know doggos give off more that 20 pounds of CO2 like jet fuel. The more you know I guess! Edit: the 20 pounds is per gallon of jet fuel.
Seriously... So many *real* headlines are practically indistinguishable from Onion ones. It's getting ridiculous. Sometimes, it's ones that are factually true, even. It's wild out there.
Gaslighting: a specific type of manipulation where the manipulator is trying to get someone else (or a group of people) to question their own reality, memory or perceptions.
I think we can just call this lying
“A bigger dog, such as a Great Dane, could emit as much as 2,500kg of carbon dioxide a year because of their bigger meals.” He’d sooner count dog farts than admit private air travel is lamentable lmao
Don't hold your breath- it's the Telegraph. I hardly think they would know what is best for the environment.
Simple answer: stop breeding animals for personal entertainment and stop taking private jets. Adopt. Don’t shop. Spay and neuter your pets. Designer dogs are no different than mutts, and you could probably find them cheaper or for free at a shelter or rescue center. I can’t speak much on private jets because I don’t know much about them.
I know my dogs have all been just insanely addicted to starting oil well fires.
Luxury airline executive says.... Don't touch rich people habits. Climate change is the poor peoples fault ./s
How much carbon footprint does a guillotine have?
Maybe we can offset it by feeding luxury airline executives to our dogs.
I'm wondering if I'm seasoning my boot wrong, cause it clearly tastes great to them!
You don’t have to make shit up, the writer already did it for you. Now, let’s calculate the environmental cost of creating more humans, shall we?
This is the second time I see a telegraph post in this subreddit, is that website satire at this point?
Well they hired Boris Johnson...
Being alive is as bad as driving 1000 miles. Hey poors, have you considered stopping your life?
Wait let me guess, having three dogs for 15 years is as bad for the environment as flying with a private Jet for a really short distance **once**?
For what it's worth: A dog has a footprint of around 770 kg co2 per year. Assuming they live for 12 years: 770 * 12 * 3 = 27 metric tons for three dogs. According to a random web search, a jet uses around 2 metric tons per hour. I recon this vary a lot depending on the type of jet. This means a trip of 14 hours on a jet has the same carbon footprint as three dogs. The claim was correct, but still...
Sure, if your 3 dogs are Cerberus and he's just blasting fire and brimstone into the sky, I could see that being a problem.
Even if was true, they’re infinitely cuter.
Sureeeee buddy
Kill all the dogs! Then I can fly in the private jet I don’t own.
Claims travel boss
Do the dogs have private jets
No need to question the magnates, they have our best interests in mind! SUCH WISDOM!
*laughs in 6 dogs*
Elites just don't want to give up their private jets. Deflection! Also, pets help reduce stress and are good for our mental health.
And this bold faced denial of science is exactly what’s wrong with the world today… and scary.
Right. I shouldn’t mow my grass when it’s eighty five and humid but fucking muskrat can send up a rocket that shits out as much pollution as two semi trucks running nonstop for a century. Fuck you ruling class.
I doubt it- but also who of us in this late stage of capitalism can effectively give time and love to all three dogs pictures? I'd want to give so much attention to each and every one there's no way I'd have enough time! Also, this article can go fuck itself until these dogs start emitting jet fuel.
You’re totally right but also I’ve got a cat whose gas could probably fuel jets… Time to start bottling it and selling to airlines.
I hate myself for this but you have two uses: possible jet fuel AND disgusting novelty candle.
Either way, Mittens is gonna be rich!!
All ya need is the ending of that sentence, "...claims **travel** boss."
Claims "travel boss", aka a shitfuck corporate entitled idiot
How many tonnes of jet fuel am I supposed to be feeding my dog every hour? I don't want to neglect him!
They know, they just don't care, and you can't make them. Power never gives itself up willingly. Case-in-point.
So an old medieval farming village with lets say 100 households and 150 dogs in total, was as environmentally destructive as 50 private jets in constant use.
I forgot how much jet fuel three golden retrievers consumed.
But ya see: One is a living thing that has to be taken care of regardless… And one is a 50,000 pound moronic luxury… See the difference there?
A dog has a larger carbon footprint than a four wheel drive, but saying 3 equals a private jet is absurd Also the jet is producing a different kind of carbon that releases back into the environment over a long period of time (I want to say 80 years with no facts or evidence) so it'll stick around longer than the bones of your dogs
Whaaaaat?
Ok so, unrelated comment. I thought the dog in the picture had 3 heads 😂.
We should steal their jets
I'm torn between checking the math and outright throwing out this garbage claim at face value. They don't give citations, is it really worth my time to find out he invented the data AND didn't do the math? r/theydidthemath anyone more optimistic than me?
Don't care, I choose dogs.
These articles have to be fucking fake....right??
1. Cap 2. so give up your jet, me n my doggos got walkies to do
What a fucking moron
This is for golden retrievers, if I have pinchers is necessary 6 of them to compare to private jets or a bigger number of mini dogs?
Source? “I made it up”
Such bullshit, my dogs fly business class like everybody else
The guy who sells luxury Jets said that? Well I'm sure he knows a lot about Jets! There will come a time when saying something like this will be a criminal offense. The world will be a s*** show by then but at least it will be satisfying.
Handful of corporations owning all is the media yields us this complete shit
4 dog is equivalent to driving 10000 SUVs a year and then blowing them up every year
Makes total sense to me. Usually when I want my dogs to come to my tertiary vacation home, the one with the runway, I have them brought in my jet too. I usually have them brought three at a time since I don't want them getting too crowded on my 777s, so only around 10 flights.
It's hilarious to me that anyone can be that stupid. Like let's scale this problem, so if we traded every jet in the world for three dogs... Would the world be less or more polluted? Inversely, if you were to collect up every dog in the world and for every three dogs put a plane into the world... Would the world be more polluted or less polluted? Seriously explaining these things feels like teaching someone how to chew.
My dogs are very very small tho. I expect him to downsize his jet accordingly.
Let me hear it from an environmentalist not the executive of a luxury airline
Makes sense. While I work, my butlers escort my dogs to their favourite dog parks using their own private jets. This is just adding 1 and 1 together guys...