NY Times claims ‘Trump imperils planet’ with carbon emissions, but still plans own private jet use

The New York Times loves to tell us the sacrifices we should make in the name of warmist predictions of doom, but wants to exempt itself and its wealthy readers from them when it comes to carbon generated by private jets.

Private jets – the cherished perk of the ruling class -- may be the Achilles Heel of their campaign to control carbon emissions in the name of global warming. Make no mistake: the forces pushing carbon (and therefore energy use) regulation upon us are politically potent only because of the support of powerful interests who want all the sacrifices to come from the little people. Al Gore’s vast mansion consuming many times the electricity of an average house, and his prolific use of private jets confirm the “let them eat cake” attitude of warmism-pushing elites who are unconcerned over the plight of poor people who have trouble paying their electric bills because of the price hikes associated with expensive and unreliable “green energy” projects like the windmills that slaughter millions of birds, including bald eagles. Wednesday, the Times editorial board hyperventilated over President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement and other alleged environmental sins in an editorial titled “Trump Imperils the Planet,” doom saying about:

one of the most discouraging years in recent memory for anyone who cares about the health of the planet — a year marked by President Trump’s destructive, retrograde policies, by backsliding among big nations, by fresh data showing that carbon dioxide emissions are still going up, by ever more ominous signs (devastating wildfires and floods, frightening scientific reports) of what a future of unchecked greenhouse gas emissions is likely to bring.

As Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit frequently writes, there is no reason to take seriously the demands for energy conservation until the elites pushing warmism behave as if they believe that the planet is imperiled by their energy profligacy. There is no such thing as a windmill or solar panel-powered private jet, so carbon-based fuels are inevitably used by the airborne chariots of the rich.

And they love those jets so much that sacrificing them seems to be out of the question. Michael Bastach of the Daily Caller News Foundation  asked the Times if it would be willing to seek a ban on private jets, considering the life and death of the planet stakes it claims.

The Daily Caller News Foundation asked The Times if it would ever back a powerful gesture — a ban on private jets. (snip)

If global warming is truly the urgent, existential crisis The Times’ editorial board makes it out to be, it should be willing to condemn the use of private jets, right? No one really needs a private jet, and flying commercial usually comes with a much lower carbon footprint.

The Times’ editorial board and press representatives did not respond to TheDCNF’s inquiry. Interestingly enough, The Times offered 50 wealthy readers the chance to join its writers on a luxury private jet tour around the world earlier in 2018.

Travelers joining the $135,000-per-person world tour got to ride in style on an “exclusively chartered Boeing 757 with first-class, fully lie-flat seat.” The world tour was set to begin at Times headquarters in New York City on Feb. 8, and last through March 5.

The tour was expected to net The Times upwards of $6.7 million, which is part of Sulzberger Jr.’s plan to “monetize” the paper’s name in an era where news agencies are struggling. In fact, Sulzberger gave guests a behind-scenes-tour of The Times’ headquarters before their 26-day tour, according to a brochure.

“Private jet travel allows for a more authentic and intimate journey than you have ever experienced,” reads The Times’ brochure for its global junket.

“Our privately chartered jet accommodates just 50 guests, which, combined with The Times’s familiarity with newsmakers and events, allows us to pack your itinerary with exclusive, invitation-only experiences, including a private dinner in Bogotá’s Salt Cathedral, a special Australian culinary experience and an exclusive reception with a former personal assistant to the Nobel Peace Prize winner Daw Aung San Suu Kyi,” reads the brochure.

Until the Times cancels this trip and editorializes for the end of private jet use, there is no reason to take seriously their demands for regulation of carbon emissions. They should put up or shut up when it comes to paying a price for stopping the global warming they believe in.

Incidentally, the Times gave up its own private jet in 2009, not out of concern for the planet, but because they could no longer afford it. Its powerful clients and allies, however, continue to use them, without a peep from the paper over their imperiling the plant.  

Let me be clear that I personally have no objection at all to private jet use. The few times my consulting clients flew me around on them were delightful – saving time and eliminating the hassles of TSA pat downs and other inconveniences of aerial bus travel.  But I think that relying on computer models predicting disaster that have failed to forecast in the past the actual weather that eventuated is foolish.

Image Credit: Adam Jones

The New York Times loves to tell us the sacrifices we should make in the name of warmist predictions of doom, but wants to exempt itself and its wealthy readers from them when it comes to carbon generated by private jets.

Private jets – the cherished perk of the ruling class -- may be the Achilles Heel of their campaign to control carbon emissions in the name of global warming. Make no mistake: the forces pushing carbon (and therefore energy use) regulation upon us are politically potent only because of the support of powerful interests who want all the sacrifices to come from the little people. Al Gore’s vast mansion consuming many times the electricity of an average house, and his prolific use of private jets confirm the “let them eat cake” attitude of warmism-pushing elites who are unconcerned over the plight of poor people who have trouble paying their electric bills because of the price hikes associated with expensive and unreliable “green energy” projects like the windmills that slaughter millions of birds, including bald eagles. Wednesday, the Times editorial board hyperventilated over President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement and other alleged environmental sins in an editorial titled “Trump Imperils the Planet,” doom saying about:

one of the most discouraging years in recent memory for anyone who cares about the health of the planet — a year marked by President Trump’s destructive, retrograde policies, by backsliding among big nations, by fresh data showing that carbon dioxide emissions are still going up, by ever more ominous signs (devastating wildfires and floods, frightening scientific reports) of what a future of unchecked greenhouse gas emissions is likely to bring.

As Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit frequently writes, there is no reason to take seriously the demands for energy conservation until the elites pushing warmism behave as if they believe that the planet is imperiled by their energy profligacy. There is no such thing as a windmill or solar panel-powered private jet, so carbon-based fuels are inevitably used by the airborne chariots of the rich.

And they love those jets so much that sacrificing them seems to be out of the question. Michael Bastach of the Daily Caller News Foundation  asked the Times if it would be willing to seek a ban on private jets, considering the life and death of the planet stakes it claims.

The Daily Caller News Foundation asked The Times if it would ever back a powerful gesture — a ban on private jets. (snip)

If global warming is truly the urgent, existential crisis The Times’ editorial board makes it out to be, it should be willing to condemn the use of private jets, right? No one really needs a private jet, and flying commercial usually comes with a much lower carbon footprint.

The Times’ editorial board and press representatives did not respond to TheDCNF’s inquiry. Interestingly enough, The Times offered 50 wealthy readers the chance to join its writers on a luxury private jet tour around the world earlier in 2018.

Travelers joining the $135,000-per-person world tour got to ride in style on an “exclusively chartered Boeing 757 with first-class, fully lie-flat seat.” The world tour was set to begin at Times headquarters in New York City on Feb. 8, and last through March 5.

The tour was expected to net The Times upwards of $6.7 million, which is part of Sulzberger Jr.’s plan to “monetize” the paper’s name in an era where news agencies are struggling. In fact, Sulzberger gave guests a behind-scenes-tour of The Times’ headquarters before their 26-day tour, according to a brochure.

“Private jet travel allows for a more authentic and intimate journey than you have ever experienced,” reads The Times’ brochure for its global junket.

“Our privately chartered jet accommodates just 50 guests, which, combined with The Times’s familiarity with newsmakers and events, allows us to pack your itinerary with exclusive, invitation-only experiences, including a private dinner in Bogotá’s Salt Cathedral, a special Australian culinary experience and an exclusive reception with a former personal assistant to the Nobel Peace Prize winner Daw Aung San Suu Kyi,” reads the brochure.

Until the Times cancels this trip and editorializes for the end of private jet use, there is no reason to take seriously their demands for regulation of carbon emissions. They should put up or shut up when it comes to paying a price for stopping the global warming they believe in.

Incidentally, the Times gave up its own private jet in 2009, not out of concern for the planet, but because they could no longer afford it. Its powerful clients and allies, however, continue to use them, without a peep from the paper over their imperiling the plant.  

Let me be clear that I personally have no objection at all to private jet use. The few times my consulting clients flew me around on them were delightful – saving time and eliminating the hassles of TSA pat downs and other inconveniences of aerial bus travel.  But I think that relying on computer models predicting disaster that have failed to forecast in the past the actual weather that eventuated is foolish.

Image Credit: Adam Jones