>>2005244
inb4 not real communists

>>2005244
Eventually every airline is going to do this

>big corporations should pay if they pollute the environment!!!
big corporations: *passes the fee to the consumer*

>>2005244
but anon, that's capitalism

>>2005262
It is the consumer and the consumers decision that pollutes. Suppliers merely make offers. Consumers take them up on it and the consumers demand drives the production, service and associated pollution.

>>2005262
>>big corporations should pay if they pollute the environment!!!
This is naive bullshit. Fining "big bad corpo" is nothing more than message laundering when monetarily punishing consumer decisions which the state deems undesirable.

The higher ticket costs are intentional. Not a mistake, not part of the point, they're the whole point.

As a flight passenger you already pay for the exact same fuel duties that you would if you fuelled up your car. There is absolutely no environmental justification whatsoever that flying should be singled out for additional punishment OTHER THAN it enables freedoms that no other form of transport does.

Prediction: When BEV passenger aircraft can travel around Europe these fees will NOT be revoked.

>>2005771
It is a naive assumption that the inteoduction of BEV aircraft would objectively provide the basis to revoke the added fee.
Yes, the fee is explained to be linked to kerosene and BEVs use no such fossil fuel.
But: As long as the totality of energy demands on planet earth is not met with an equal or greater supply of renewable energy any avoidable and especially excessive use of energy is not 'CO2 extensive'. This is simply brokered through substitution.
One can alternatively make the observation that no fossil fuel usage was reduced but the total energy demand was increased, effectively taking up all recently installed renewably capacity.
How about sinply not motoring ? And especially not flying ? Both are unnecessary and needlessly energy intensive, the later even more so.

>>2005771
>monetarily punishing consumer decisions which the state deems undesirable
You think they're trying to disincentivize flying?

It's not a fine. It's not imposed by the state. It's self imposed by the airline (a private business).
Why would an airline view flying with it as an undesirable consumer decision?

It is a PR ploy, designed to encourage people to fly. Consumers are growing more and more environmentally conscious (especially people with money, and young people interested in seeing the world), and airlines need to address this to maintain their image and keep numbers up.

The reality is that offsetting carbon is fairly dubious, and actual reduction of emissions is the only real way to address climate change. It would be great if what you're saying was true, but it doesn't make any sense. This is a form of greenwashing, simply adding a respectable veneer to a harmful industry, to allow it to continue and increase its business.

>>2005884
>fossil fuel
fuck off

>>2005887
>address climate change
The idea of local emissions relating to climate change is just as bullshit as the idea that CO2 causes it and that "offsetting" it would help.

>>2005771
>There is absolutely no environmental justification whatsoever that flying should be singled out for additional punishment
Also, yes, there is.

In many places in the world, driving a car is necessary to maintain a reasonable standard of life. There aren't really viable alternatives, you need a car to work and to live. Flying isn't really the same. It's usually a luxury, afforded to a wealthy minority.

In many places in the world, operating coal power stations is necessary for economic growth, where a large percent of the population live in a dire economic situation.

Synthetic fertilizers keep famine at bay.
Is it reasonable for people to totally fuck up their standard of living, when their lives are already shit? Should addressing climate change mean pushing people below the poverty line or not allowing them to rise above it?

Climate justice is the idea that fairness and humanism needs to be applied when addressing climate change.

One long haul flight is equivalent to a year of emissions from an average passenger vehicle. Wealthy people (People who fly) have significantly higher per capita emissions. Them, and their ilk, have largely been responsible for creating the crisis in the first place. And, the cost to them of a levy like that, is relatively insignificant.

You can disagree with this idea, or specifics of it, but it's not an arguement that doesn't exist, and i suspect if you tried to argue against it, you'd be arguing in bad faith, when in reality, all you care about, and the only truth that matters to you is that climate change is not real, or, that you simply don't care.

It's pretty hard to find a middle class western liberal who doesn't in the end 'not care' about climate change, when it comes to travelling. But that doesn't mean on a moral or intellectual level that it isn't wrong. Most people with means are hypocrites. You only have one life and it is not worth martyring yourself to the climate cause.

>>2005889
This isn't happening in bad faith though. You do understand that most people genuinely believe climate science right?

The idea of offsetting emissions isn't far fetched either. Trees sequester carbon. Pay people money to plant trees. That offsets emissions.

Now, in reality, carbon offsetting is in many ways a scam, it often doesn't actually achieve anything, and it's used to greenwash emissions. Actual emissions reduction is far, far more important. But it's not a nonsensical idea.

>>2005771
>There is absolutely no environmental justification whatsoever that flying should be singled out for additional punishment OTHER THAN it enables freedoms that no other form of transport does.
You're even practically explaining the idea of climate justice yourself.

Another way of saying 'enables unparalleled freedoms' is that flying is the height of luxury.
Luxury is a thing afforded to a wealthy minority.

'Punish the rich' is a justification.

>>2005767
>set up thugs as a service
>charge $10000 per head
>get told you've set up an immoral service
>it is the consumer that decided it!!!
you're a dumb fucking gorilla nigger retard
the customer is paying to get transported, it's up to the provider to pick their methods

>>2005894
I have a car, for road trips and picking up bicycles i buy

>>2005884
>How about sinply not motoring ? And especially not flying ?
Because friends and family. But yeah, we're trying to reduce it.

>>2005888
That means oil and gas, it's created by compressed remains. My four-year-old understands that. Why don't you?

>>2005890
Ooft. Nail on the head.

>>2005892
>You're even practically explaining the idea of climate justice yourself.
>'Punish the rich' is a justification.
I wasn't assuming all that communist newspeak bullshit. "climate justice" is an incongruent phrase. It's not even English, it's a parallel language.
>Another way of saying 'enables unparalleled freedoms' is that flying is the height of luxury.
No, I meant "enables freedoms that no other form of transport does" as in the physical freedom to FLY THROUGH THE AIR LIKE A BIRD rather than getting on a fucking boat you retard.

>>2005890
>>There is absolutely no environmental justification
>Also, yes, there is.
>[communist manifesto]
kys
>Wealthy people (People who fly) have significantly higher per capita emissions. Them, and their ilk, have largely been responsible for creating the crisis in the first place.
Wealthy first-worlders invent and enable everything which makes everyone else's lives possible. Without the people you irrationally despise you'd be tilling dirt until you died at 47.
It's honestly incredible how you people look at the world; you guffaw at wealth, but are completely incurious as to how it was generated. If you were honest with yourself for one moment, you'd recognize that some people just do more for society than others, and they're rewarded for it. It's nothing more than the politics of envy.
>You can disagree with this idea, or specifics of it, but it's not an arguement that doesn't exist
It's not an ENVIRONMENTAL argument, it's flagrantly political, which was my entire point. Thanks for proving me entirely correct, you vermin just want to fuck with people's lives.

>>2005989
>it's created by compressed remains
The compressed remains of animals and plants which were alive despite all that carbon being in the atmosphere. I wonder how they coped with the runaway climate crisis.

>>2005884
>It is a naive assumption that the inteoduction of BEV aircraft would objectively provide the basis to revoke the added fee.
No, it is not naive to assume that a fee introduced on the basis of carbon emissions would be revoked when the reason for it's introduction is removed.
>But: As long as the totality of energy demands on planet earth is not met with an equal or greater supply of renewable energy
Shut the fuck up. If 100% of the energy used to charge BEV aircraft came from the brownest German coal burned in the shittiest Chinese plants on the coldest days in January during a blizzard, the planes would still cause less emissions than current jets. Electric propulsion is way, way more efficient than combustion.
Combustion's PRIMARY product is heat, from which machines scavenge motive force. An electric motor's PRIMARY product is motive force. And let's be real, the first place they'll be brought in is Europe and the continental US, two of the cleanest energy grids on the planet.
But if enough people like you can have the wool pulled over your eyes we will be stuck with the climate racket, forever, everywhere, until there's a tax for going to the gym on the justification that "luxury" exertion causes emissions.

>>2005995
>No, it is not naive to
Yes it is
You have a college freshman tier understanding of government

>>2005998
>>2005771
>Prediction: When BEV passenger aircraft can travel around Europe these fees will NOT be revoked.
I meant to say "should" in >>2005995
I know the fees won't be revoked, because my entire argument is that they have fuck-all to do with the environment, as the communists who enthusiastically replied with "climate justice" arguments (telling on themselves as they always do in unguarded moments) helpfully illustrated.

>>2005260
At least on AF/KLM its optional and they will spot you some XP if you opt to pay up

>>2005992
>No, I meant "enables freedoms that no other form of transport does" as in the physical freedom to FLY THROUGH THE AIR LIKE A BIRD rather than getting on a fucking boat you retard.
So, the physical act of flying is the unparalleled freedom which you're trying to defend?

I'm fairly certain most people view it purely as a convenience and a novelty. Given any other method of transport which is as convenient, flying holds no real appeal.

So, you're defending flying on the level of a scenic flight which doesn't actual go anywhere? Because most people view flying as uncomfortable and a means to an ends, to actually get somewhere. The fact you're up in the sky like a bird is neither here nor there. Personally i do get a kick out of it, but i'm in a minority. It's not some great freedom to defend. Nobody cares. If you could catch a train somewhere that was as fast and cheaper, people would rather do that.

>>2005992
>It's not an ENVIRONMENTAL argument, it's flagrantly political, which was my entire point.
Everything is political

What exactly is environmental but not political?
Establishing a marine sanctuary is political right?

Also in this case, you have a levy being established by a private company. If you want to minimize the definition of politics to mean laws and regulations over people by a government, then this is not political, because it's being done by a private corporation. The idea that people who fly desire climate action as consumers who make choices, and can afford the price it costs, is free market capitalism.

>>2005992
I'm just slightly sick of being told
>there isn't an argument against this
when really you just disagree with the argument.

It's the rhetorical equivalent of:
>LALALALALALLAA IM NOT LISTENING LALALALALLAALA

>>2005992
>Wealthy first-worlders invent and enable everything which makes everyone else's lives possible. Without the people you irrationally despise you'd be tilling dirt until you died at 47.
>It's honestly incredible how you people look at the world; you guffaw at wealth, but are completely incurious as to how it was generated. If you were honest with yourself for one moment, you'd recognize that some people just do more for society than others, and they're rewarded for it. It's nothing more than the politics of envy.

It's not even relevant how people have generated their wealth.
The argument for climate justice is basically:

>we have to pay for this
who should pay for it?
>the people with money that can afford to

You're not even arguing against the idea of climate justice, you're arguing against the idea of climate change being real and climate action being necessary.
If you accept 'we have to pay for this' as a hypothetical, who do you think should pay for it?

>>2006049
>I'm fairly certain most people view it purely as a convenience and a novelty.
Every single place on planet Earth is not the continental US, except the continental US. If passenger aircraft did not exist some areas of the globe would be months apart. Those are "inconveniences" which prevent loved ones from ever seeing each other ever again. And those alternative forms of transport would be MORE carbon-intensive, because all of the time spent in transit is more resources needed to support passengers, and all the embodied carbon that entails.
Once again, it's short-sighted, ignorant loathing which drives your political opinion that people shouldn't fly, not any genuine concern for carbon emissions.
>Nobody cares.
>If you could catch a train somewhere that was as fast and cheaper, people would rather do that.
The views you're espousing are deeply, deeply unpopular. Your grandstanding on the assumed high horse of public backing is completely refuted by simply looking at the choices people make, both in the market and politically.
Here's the real reason why people like you hate the notion of electric passenger aircraft, and hate companies like Tesla and Amazon: capitalists are solving the problem. They are taking your political currency away, bit by bit, and you can't stand it. Tick tock, it's going as we speak. EV market share rising, prices falling, you can't do shit about it.
Aptera's about to release a vehicle twice as energy efficient as most EVs, and cheaper, and self-charging. It's over, dickhead. It is so fucking over once the normies are whitepilled, you'll be shouting into the fucking wind.
Middle/upper class normies who get solar and heatpumps installed, charging their Tesla in the garage, feeling self-satisfied that their Caribbean vacation is offset by their green personal choices, are actually empirically correct. And they're not voting for your party of drug addicts to force them to take a 20 hour train and a 3-day ferry both ways.

>>2006051
I'm sick of commies roaming free on the internet spreading their filth around.

You should be beaten to death with baseball bats.

>>2006052
So climate justice is absolutely not just and is just you trying to steal money for your shitty political project.

Consider drinking bleach.

>>2006052
The only political achievement of any major first-world green party is to convince Europe's largest economy to burn mountains of the dirtiest, least-efficient coal.

YOU. AND. YOUR. COMRADES. ARE. DANGEROUSLY. INEPT. Get this through your fucking head: the boring, rich, white guys in suits who drone on about the economy are MORE INTELLIGENT AND BETTER-INFORMED DECISION MAKERS than people who appeal to the divine wisdom of AUTISTIC CHILDREN. Goldman Sachs knows MORE than the combined knowledge of everyone who would consider you a political ally.

If you leave the suits alone they will silently, thanklessly, drearily, make your life better in every aspect, as they have done for hundreds of years, you ungrateful cretin. All you need to do is grow up and let go of your envy.

>>2006056
>Every single place on planet Earth is not the continental US, except the continental US. If passenger aircraft did not exist some areas of the globe would be months apart. Those are "inconveniences" which prevent loved ones from ever seeing each other ever again. And those alternative forms of transport would be MORE carbon-intensive, because all of the time spent in transit is more resources needed to support passengers, and all the embodied carbon that entails.
>Once again, it's short-sighted, ignorant loathing which drives your political opinion that people shouldn't fly, not any genuine concern for carbon emissions.

I don't think people shouldn't fly and I wasn't arguing the real life merits of flying vs other forms of transport.

I was talking about
>the physical freedom to FLY THROUGH THE AIR LIKE A BIRD
separate to the practical ability that gives you to travel somewhere efficiently.
That, all else being the same (this is purely a hypothetical) flying has no value for most people vs other forms of transport.

Do you understand? It's an abstract idea.

>Middle/upper class normies who get solar and heatpumps installed, charging their Tesla in the garage, feeling self-satisfied that their Caribbean vacation is offset by their green personal choices, are actually empirically correct
Do you fucking believe in climate change and that we should be doing anything about it, or not?
This is very confusing. You think those things address climate change, and that's a good thing?

>>2005992
>climate justice" is an incongruent phrase. It's not even English, it's a parallel language.

Climate Justice is the name of a bestselling climate book written by an irish un ambassador.

Environmental Justice was my casebook in my environmental law class.

You are incorrect.

>>2005995
> Shut the fuck up
Ok. You're not worth debating with if you need to get rude because you're losing the argument. All the best.

>>2006059
>he needs a weapon
You're a snivelling coward. I bet you fantasise about your woman fucking other men.

>>2006076
I only give a fuck about the strategic benefits of increasing the energy resources of my country. Yes climate change is happening, but making energy expensive will only accomplish pushing carbon-intensive industries abroad, where they will both emit as much, and make our economy vulnerable to capability gaps.

>This is very confusing. You think those things address climate change, and that's a good thing?
No, it's very, very simple: whitepilling normies makes them immune to commie bullshit. I don't think warming will lead to ecosystem collapse, I think human encroachment leads to ecosystem collapse. But enough people in society are convinced of extreme claims which not even scientists agree on that the threat needs to be addressed, because they're primed to think the worst. The more of these people are alarmed, the more political power communists who just want to control everyone and kill their enemies have.

As industry enables people to live (and KNOW they're living) low-carbon lives, the power of climate alarmism dissipates, which is critically important because climate alarmism is one of the most likely vehicle for a leftist revolution.
So for me it's kill two birds with one stone: internationally we're far less leveraged, domestically we're more politically stable. Also I dislike breathing exhaust fumes on a ride as much as anyone.

Worst is that this won't be included in the fare as it is displayed in search engines, making searching for flights slightly more cumbersome.

>>2006059
No señor. You need helicopter!

>>2006161
>I don't think warming will lead to ecosystem collapse
Why put the goalposts there? Anything short of that is fine?
It's hard to understand how thinking people can witness the recent extreme weather events, floods, fires, etc, increasing in frequency and severity and not already realize that the consequences, now, are catastrophic.

It's right in your face.

>making energy expensive will only accomplish pushing carbon-intensive industries abroad
How does that relate to this specific example in the OP? How does any of what you're saying? It even seems like you're arguing for it, by saying that you think it's good for people to believe they're living low carbon lives.

File: 904e80a1c9cfb8c14233b4ad2(...).jpg (140 KB, 842x960)

140 KB JPG

>>2006139
>You're not worth debating with
There's no debate with communist filth to begin with. Breathe mustard gas.

>>2006083
Everyone who ever uses the phrase "climate justice" needs to be sento into a gas chamber.

>>2006250
>Anything short of that is fine?
Not anything, but many things. Like for instance the global increase in fresh water, and the global increase in vegetation despite a simultaneous increase in the human population. Both human habitation and flora are increasing simultaneously, counter-intuitive to many people.
>It's hard to understand how thinking people can witness the recent extreme weather events, floods, fires, etc, increasing in frequency and severity and not already realize that the consequences, now, are catastrophic.
HUNDREDS of multiples more people are killed by cold each year than all other weather events. Wildfire deaths are a particular red herring, because they correlate far more closely with differences in land use and forestry practices than with average summer temperatures.
A wildfire burning at 800c is not magically extinguished by a 27c breeze, yet fanned by a 28c breeze. It's extinguished when it cannot find fuel.
>It's right in your face.
It literally and figuratively is not. It just isn't. You are afraid of wildfires, floods, and hurricanes, I am not. It's in your head, and you live in your head.
>How does that relate to this specific example in the OP?
It doesn't, the conversation got carried along.

>>2006264
What do you think about the example in the OP ?

>>2006263
What's your understand of what it means? Not in terms of strawmans, screeching, and hyperbole, but what do you actually think it means?

>>2006272
I think this means that the user of the bullshit term is an obnoxious nigger worshipping communist that is hellbent on destroying the only islands of civlilization in this world.

>>2006275
uh huh so you don't know what it means

It's the idea that addressing climate change needs to take into account how that affects people's lives.
IE, you rely on your car to work and live, there aren't good alternatives, you don't make much money, therefor it's unfair to raise gas prices, and punish you, the little guy. That is climate justice.

It's actually an idea that you mostly hear from conservatives.

It's quite sad that you refuse to engage with ideas, or reality, but instead focus on your culture war, race, gender, and other shit that most people don't really care about.

File: d7d5df32a5f6fc1ce5be75f8e(...).jpg (686 KB, 2000x984)

686 KB JPG

>>2006278
Yes, it's the idea that kikes like you should bypass any laws in developed nations and just take whatever they want for the sake of their bullshit manufactured grievances.

Communists don't belive in truth or honestly and will lie and peddle any bullshit they can so there's no reason to take anything you say at face value isntead of recognizing your actual goals you pursue and acting against them accordingly by killing you all so bad that you're scared of rearing your heads for some time afterwards.

>>2006279
how old are you lol
like... 13? or 50? Those would be my guesses

>>2006280
Dilate and join the 41% tranny

>>2006272
>>2006278
>>2006280
shut the fuck up loser

>>2006288
If you don't want to hear from leftists maybe don't post on a board for bicycles and trains crying about environmental action.

>>2005242
Good. I also hope there will be additional surcharges in the future, like for the Ukraine war, "solidarity" with the LGBTQWERTZ and migrants - the cucked and spineless Germans would pay that too.

>>2006278
The ultimate threat justifies ultimate power to combat it, that's the totalitarian angle of "climate justice". It's very revealing when people pretend not to notice this.
>It's the idea that addressing climate change needs to take into account how that affects people's lives.
Yes, this was addressed earlier, this is exactly why it's not just, because it's got nothing to do with people's conduct. It's means-based ethics, a complete farce.
>It's actually an idea that you mostly hear from conservatives.
No, conservatives are not engaging in "climate justice" when they oppose gas price increases. This is a false consciousness claim, a favourite of communist regimes who used it to declare dissenters legally insane. You are projecting your fucked up frame of analysis into someone else's head, and you're doing it KNOWING they don't share it.
When one side gets to decide the meaning of arguments raised in opposition to them, the only recourse is violence.

>>2006300
>it's got nothing to do with people's conduct
climate justice is related to climate action, which targets individuals, countries, and corporations for polluting.
how are those two things unrelated?

Take the example of taxing petrol. An argument against doing that is it punishes the little guy who is already in an economically precarious situation.
That is the 'means based ethics' you refer to. But what we're originally talking about is taxing polluters, and the idea of whether or not it's fair to do so is in that context, which is about people's conduct, ie, that they are polluters. How are those two things unrelated?

>False consciousness is how the proletariat (or oppressed classes more generally) internalizes its oppression. It believes that the system is working in its favor, when in fact it's working against its interests and in favor of bourgeois interests.
>You are projecting your fucked up frame of analysis into someone else's head, and you're doing it KNOWING they don't share it.
I'm not trying to claim that conservative people agree with all of my ideas or the larger agenda of environmentalists, what you're doing is reducing nuance and complexity into two oppositional sides, and therefor it's impossible for any common ideas to be shared, for any form of consensus, or even, for any discussion. You won't agree with me about anything, nor admit to being wrong about anything, nor is it possible for you to learn anything from me, or change your mind about anything, because to you there is a larger, and absolute truth and every piece of detail is irrelevant.

You have not explained why exactly my example is wrong.
Do conservatives never say that it is unfair to tax petrol, because they are economically struggling? That was pretty much the entire thrust of the yellow vests movement. It is a means based argument. That does not make those people 'communists', it makes your simple terms, definitions, and reductive thinking, retarded.

>>2006289
Nope, i'll call you out for the slimy scum you are until you kill yourself.

>>2006302
You're not a conversvative and never will be one, why are you trying to skirt your ethics onto them? To avoid being exposed as the totalitarian leech you obviously are? It's not working, just like all your other bullshit about gibs and taxes in the name of justice doesn't pass.

You will never pass, tranny.

>>2006300
>The ultimate threat justifies ultimate power to combat it, that's the totalitarian angle of "climate justice"
Climate justice isn't climate action, you're misunderstanding the term. I can understand being afraid of transformative change, but climate justice is a set of principles guiding how to go about that change without unfairly impacting people's lives, not the change itself.

Why are you afraid of the change? Because it's going to fuck up your life. So why are you afraid of the concept that the change shouldn't unduely fuck up people's lives?

The totalitarianism you're afraid of is climate action, not climate justice. If you're going to argue against the idea of climate justice, you take climate action as a hypothetical, otherwise you're just arguing against climate action.

And i think it's abundantly clear that transformative change is not going to happen any time soon. A leftist revolution is not going to happen. The necessary condition for revolution is awful economic conditions (far beyond the scale of recent recessions), and I hope that we do not come to that. If anything, the only way it would come about in the west is if climate change (or war) actually does destroy the planet.
That's not something anyone should hope for.
What we get instead is heel dragging incremental progress, which you people will adopt and support once you get used to each piece of it.

>>2006304
In a democracy, I think it's valuable to discuss ideas, because in reality most people can agree about many things as we all have similar interests. It's destructive to simply file into two seperate identity based groups and then call each other names instead of think.

>>2006306
>please argue with my manufactured leftist concept that's only used by kikes like me as a trojan horse to slide into arguments when the rest of my climate tyranny won't pass
No. Eat shit commie bitch, you will never get your way and i'll personally dump gasoline into your nearby lake next time i'm around the place you dipshits gather.

>>2006307
It's not a democracy when one side advocates bypassing the democracy to get their way because they can't get through legally. The only destructive thing here is enabling scum like you to talk and poison the discussion with your rotten falsehoods.

>>2006308
This is basically just admitting that i'm right and you have no further ability to argue with me.

>>2006310
Nah, it's stating that nothing you can say has any value and all your arguments are two faced lies you make on the spot to get your way, because that's how leftists think.

>>2006311
Ah yes, i'm automatically wrong and you're automatically right.
How convenient that the actual things you say don't need to hold up to any level of debate or scrutiny.

must be nice living in your fantasy world.

>>2006312
Yes, leftists don't deserve an argument because you're all feckless hypocrites that only argue when it benefits them or helps them trick people.

You don't deserve a debate because you're a dirty whore who will say anything to get your way and nothing you say influences your actions and goals.

>>2006313
No lad, you tried to argue, and then you gave up. Don't pretend otherwise.

>>2006314
No, i called your bullshit about "climate justice" for what it is - just a shill term for trannies to pretend you're not trying to get in the way of people's lives. I've stated so in the beginning, and i'm right. It's you who demands people argue about how you're totally not a a totalitarian leftist despite advocating for the same bullshit all of you do under your facade.

>>2006316
nuh uh

>>2006317
Uh huh. Dilate and kill yourself you BIPOC tranny parasite and your cancerous mix of nigger worship and climate totalitariansim.

>>2006318
no u

File: 1608697019304.gif (2.95 MB, 600x338)

2.95 MB GIF

>>2006319

File: no lad.webm (1.84 MB, 220x400)

1.84 MB WEBM

>>2006320

File: 1642220125952.jpg (131 KB, 1024x1024)

131 KB JPG

>>2006322

File: babar.jpg (883 KB, 1600x1930)

883 KB JPG

>>2006323

File: DP-Plane.jpg (97 KB, 750x500)

97 KB JPG

>>2005242
>Time to pay up wagie! Mr. Sheckel...

You are quite correct that "Climate Change" is nothing but a Jewish scam. Could be easily mitigated but noo.. have to steal money for "green Projects" and solar panels.

This announcement is to get the hands slapping together by the modern "real" communists. Unlike leftists , I know reality. And reality will be .... that is , Airline competition.
Be a frequent flier , Pay with your American Express Black Card , a paid member of the "Lufthansa Club". Hey Guess what , Lufthansa will waive the fee!!!
They might even create a separate lounge where you can dine on Panda Bear hearts as you watch the Wagies push the plane back from the gate before take off.

>>Leftists are stupid and get easily played by the rich -- The rich are the one's who amplify these ideas --

Oh Look Lefty Wagie, I mister rich am going to pay a fee, going to pay my fair share , I can see you licking your lips ... and Ohhhhh I sail through a loop hole .... Tooo bad ... but you wagies still have to pay .... isn't that too bad .
Better luck next time.

And it is rinse and repeat -- like some Saturday Cartoon - the Cobra Commander escapes at the end the episode and we get to do it all again next week.

>>2005242
I don't travel. The prices of plane tickets are irrelevant to me.

>>2005242
>up to
meaningless. a charge of "up to" a billion dollars may, in practice, be only 25 cents.

>>2006302
>>False consciousness is how the proletariat (or oppressed classes more generally) internalizes its oppression. It believes that the system is working in its favor, when in fact it's working against its interests and in favor of bourgeois interests.
Thank you for proving my point so concisely, the actual quote was: "This is a false consciousness claim, a favourite of communist regimes who used it to declare dissenters legally insane." even from your generous definition it's plain to see how it's a tyranny enabling idea, it presumes that everyone's interests can be known and defined.
>what you're doing is reducing nuance and complexity into two oppositional sides
No, at the VERY BEGINNING you seize on an idea someone else is attempting to express, and warp it into YOUR CONCEPTUAL FRAMING. And then you respond to it as if the other person is working within your ideological frame.
That debases discussion AT THE ROOT. You aren't even discussing, you're telling, you're dictating. That is why violence is the only possible response to people like you, you cannot be spoken to, you abuse dialogue, you abuse language.

Communists lie, all the time, about everything.

File: 1388901040168.gif (1.9 MB, 302x223)

1.9 MB GIF

damn i missed out on a good argument

this is just classic overreach for a dumb corporation passing off a fee onto the consumer and the g*rms would be dumb enough to pay for it. that fee isn't going to cover anything and is just gonna be a weird slush fund for their credit card branch.

>>2006258
Try to be calm. Are the communists here in the room with us right now?

>>2005242
75 is not enough to dissuade commoners to take a plane for their week ends. It may sound cynical but taking a plane should be reserved to rich people, that's the only way to reduce the aérial traffic.

>>2007262
Yes, you're here when you shouldn't be.

>>2007308
Have sex incel

>>2005242
*Passenger pay more to cover airliner climate tax so the goverment can have more tax

>>2005262
I'm fine with that, changes consumer habits and potentially indirectly harms corporations by decreasing sales. More to the point it incentivizes actual change, most pollution is from corporations whether energy for cooling and lighting large office buildings and warehouses construction of concrete or shipping goods and people. The onus for stopping climate change shouldn't rest solely on individuals.
>You vill take ze public transit
>You vill eat ze bug
>You vill recycle
>You vill live in ze pod
>You von't use plastic shopping bags
>You von't drive a cool car
>You von't water your lawn
>You von't take showers longer than ten minutes

>>2005242
>Time to pay up wagie! Mr. Sheckel.
0.2% of the world population, 90% of the space in your head