Manager: This is an editorial from Dagbladet, and expresses the views of the newspaper. Dagbladet’s political editor is in charge of the editorial.
They are italicized in the biggest banks in the country – the same in emission statistics.
We are of course talking about the richest Norway. Who has so much money that you can only dream of it, and who can afford to rent their own private jet when they want to go out into the outside world. Even if you have to cancel your vacation due to a flight strike, it doesn’t matter to them.
Access to flights this summer is a tale of stark contrast: between those who can afford it and those who can’t. At the very least, it enters into the perennial discussion that the green shift should be fair.
The Vårt Land newspaper has mapped climate emissions from some jet setters, such as Petter Stordalen. Avisa says that there are 683 private planes registered in Norway, and shows how the climate that counts for the richest is not resilient to global climate threats.
The richest country takes out 16 times as much as half of the population with the poorest means. Per head, mind you.
Therefore, there is no doubt that extensive private air traffic was undesirable, and should definitely be taxed much heavier than it is today. But pretending that it is one of Norway’s main climate problems is pure populism.
Red will ban all sulamit by private plane. This may be understandable from the party’s Marxist ideological base, but as an important climate measure, it does not mean much.
In his continued passion for so-called fairer environmental policies, Rødt continues to fall into symbolic ineffective policies, where what matters is the policy is about the rich, not how much emissions we cut.
Recently, it’s not just private plane owners chasing Red; people with jacuzzis and large cabins also have to pay more for their consumption.
The proposal itself might make sensebut they need to stop pretending that the climate provides excellent service.
In fact, on the other hand, we should all reduce our consumption of fossil fuels. Even though the number of billionaires is growing in Norway, ordinary people’s consumption is still the biggest problem.
If tougher action on the greenhouse gas emissions of the rich creates greater acceptance among ordinary people for green change, then fine. But making gasoline and electricity cheaper for ordinary people, as Rødt proposes, at the same time as banning private planes and imposing high taxes on jacuzzis – it doesn’t significantly reduce Norway’s greenhouse gas emissions. In the worst case, they will increase. Emissions must come down, from the poor and from the rich.
“Subtly charming web junkie. Unapologetic bacon lover. Introvert. Typical foodaholic. Twitter specialist. Professional travel fanatic.”