People are calling socialite with a makeup line, Kylie Jenner, a climate criminal.
That's right, for taking insanely short private flights from different
points in Southern California, really just within the Los Angeles area.
Specifically last week, a 12 minute flight,
which could have been just a 50 minute car ride.
But why drive when you can fly.
And the reason we know this, and the reason we're getting some of this backlash
is because Kylie Jenner actually posted a photo of herself with her boyfriend,
Travis Scott, making out.
And there was a very adorable caption as they make out between
two private jets and it says, you wanna take mine or yours?
So that was that caption, you wanna take mine or yours?
And that means, yes, your private jet.
If you already thought it was a luxury to be like, which car do you wanna take?
Imagine doing that with private jets.
So more details on these flights.
The Bombardier Global 7500 jet, which by the way, is a $70 million jet,
traveled for 35 minutes from Palm Springs, just outside of LA,
to Van Nuys near her $36 million Hidden Hills Mansion on July 15th.
Two hours later, the mom-of-two then flew from Van Nuys to Camarillo in
Ventura County, an even shorter flight, which took just 12 minutes.
She had also flown the other way, so from Camarillo to Van Nuys,
which took 17 minutes, was just like, wow, that's a lot of Headwind, 17?
And then of course a 29 minute flight from Van Nuys to Palm Springs.
Which again, a lot of headwind from the 35 minutes, or
less headwind I guess from the 35 minute flight that she took initially.
Let's just put up a little graphic so
you guys can see what kind of distance we're talking about.
This is according to Google Maps, I'm sure you've all used it.
So there's Palm Springs, there's Nan Nuys.
This is her 35 and her 29 minute flight.
As you can see there, two hours and 22 minutes, which I get it,
it's far and you only have the nicest cars in the world and
of course you don't drive them personally but whatever.
Let's forgive the 35 minute flight, let's look at the 12 minute flight.
Where is that from?
That's from Van Nuys, right there, to Camarillo, a 51 minute,
I mean 59 if you're gonna go the route with like the little guy working,
which I'm like, don't do that obviously, 51 minutes, she had to fly.
Obviously she's not the only one who does this.
There is a Twitter account that I think you guys might remember because
Elon Musk got very mad at it for exposing his private jet flight.
So it's @CelebJets, where a man by the name of
Jack Sweeney has been tracking these celebrities.
It's not just kylie Jenner, he got drake.
So one of his tweets Drake's jet landed in Hamilton, Ontario, and then Canada.
Approximate flight time, 14 minutes.
Here's how much damage that flight did to the environment.
He then in a second Tweet accounts.
Drake's jet 38 miles flight from YYZ to YHM at 402 gallons,
I imagine of gas, 1,500 liters of gas,
£2694 of jet fuel used, 2,729 cost of the fuel,
four tons of C02 emissions, [LAUGH] four tons you guys.
Obviously there's more, there's Steven Spielberg,
his jet landing near Shannon, County Clare.
Approximate flight time, 18 minutes.
Here's how much damage that flight did.
You've got 153 gallons of gas, 1,027 pounds of jet fuel used,
$1,042 of cost of fuel, two tons of C02 emissions.
And it goes on and on you got Oprah, we got Floyd Mayweather,
we got Mark Wahlberg.
We've got all the people that you generally pay $14 to
see on the silver screen, who are just literally jet setting all over this,
just the smallest amount to land possible.
Before we get to the climate impact of all this, Rage, just
thoughts on our opening acknowledgment that this has actually been going on.
>> Yeah, it makes me furious that I have to drink the straws that
disintegrate in your mouth, [LAUGH] they make us use the paper straws.
But they could just take a private jet and
land it on top of a mall or whatever the hell it is that they're doing.
The story makes me viscerally angry.
I take two busses to work and she's taken 12 minute
[LAUGH] private jet flights multiple times a day.
It's so horrific for the climate, they should not,
no one should be allowed to have a private jet.
There's not a single reason why you could need one.
I mean like business people always try to say, we need to make last
minute business deals, need to hop on the private jet, do you not have Zoom?
You could afford a private jet, but not a Zoom subscription?
Or like Mega church pastors, they need a whole fleet
of private jets that are paid for by donations of the churchgoers.
So that, I don't know, they can fly them up to the gates of heaven, but
you're gonna get turned away anyway.
So, I don't really think you need private jets either.
There's just no justification for it.
No one should own them.
It should be illegal to have a private jet.
>> I'm remembering Bernie Sanders in the middle seat on his commercial airliners.
[LAUGH] And every time if Bernie Sanders does take, I think there might have
been a couple or one or two private flights, hounded in the media.
[SOUND] Socialism, but it it is a problem, right?
Let's look at the actual data on how much more is emitted when
you take a private aircraft.
So private aircraft emit more than 33 metric tons of greenhouse gasses,
more than the country of Denmark.
And because they carry so few people,
they are five to 14 times more polluting than commercial planes per passenger and
50 times more polluting than trains, researchers have found.
So right, it's not just how much they're emitting, but of course per person,
what is the carbon footprint?
And if you're only fitting five to 14 people in it versus what
the smallest commercial airline, being something like 35, but
that's on average, a couple 100, we understand the difference here.
So, emissions from planes in general are rising rapidly.
So it's not just private jets, but they've increased emissions from just air travel,
increased by 32% between 2013 and 2018.
Yes, fuel efficiency is gradually reducing the emissions, but
it's not keeping up with a rapid increase in total passenger numbers,
which are projected to double in the next 20 years.
And so again, this is a broader problem that's not just on the rich,
everybody flies or at least, if you're lucky enough you fly.
But they get lucky every damn day, in fact multiple times a day.
And to Raven's point about who should have this?
Why do they have this?
Why would you even need a private jet?
Okay, so let's imagine convenience and the fact that you can, is put over here,
which is usually most of the reasons why the rich do anything, because they can.
But there's actually an incentive to do this.
So from Fifty Shades of Way on Twitter, they write, if we had a functioning
democracy, our politicians would impose a super tax on private jet users, but
instead the entire cost of a private jet can be used as a tax deduction
while teachers can only deduct $250 for school supplies on their taxes.
Now, that might seem ridiculous, right?
Like what do you mean?
Okay, the teachers maybe, maybe they can only deduct $250 worth of school supplies,
which is insane generally.
Cuz remember, the deduction, it's not one to one, right?
But what about private jets?
And it turns out, within Trump's tax cuts of 2017,
yeah, there was a provision, that if you buy a private jet
between the years of 2017 and 2027, in other words,
still effective, you can write off the total cost of that jet.
Now we're talking $70 million dollars for jets,
that you can be completely written off.
I mean, that goes to your overall tax write off, is what I'm saying.
So when we say things like shorthand, this was a tax cut for
the rich, [SOUND] we we literally meet this was a tax cut for the rich.
Because these private flights not only are not being taxed for their carbon
emissions, no, no, no, this is on us, this is on the federal government's.
Giving them a handout because they're buying private jets.
Before I to kick it back to you Ray, I wanna just let you guys know,
this is a story of income inequality and climate change, right?
And who are the biggest emitters and who are not, right?
And as we go forward, and we try to solve this in the middle of yet another heat
wave and yet another hottest summer on record, you can see where the blame lies.
So, according to Oxfam, and this is years ago, this is 2015.
It's gotten only worse since then.
The poorest half of the global population, around 3.5 billion people, are responsible
for only around 10% of global emissions attributed to individual consumption.
Yet overwhelmingly in those countries are most vulnerable to climate change.
In other words, people living in low income countries,
poorer nations, more susceptible to the effects of climate change,
but don't contribute as much to it.
Around 50% of these emissions meanwhile, 50%,
can be attributed to the richest 10% of people around the world who have average
carbon footprints 11 times as high as the poorest half of the population,
and 60 times as high as the poorest 10%.
So you're talking, the top 10% of people.
It's basically completely switched,
the top 10% of people emit 60 times as the poorest 10%,
which we know only contribute 10% of the, anyway, it makes sense.
Look at this.
Look at, look at, let's throw up this graph.
Figure two here from Oxfam.
Now, this is lifestyle consumption emissions.
So we're not talking about businesses you own,
we're not talking about factories that you might produce your lip gloss in.
We're talking about what you personally consume.
Look at the richest 1%, versus the poorest 10%, and
then you've got the global average.
[SOUND] I wonder how we address climate change.
>> [LAUGH] >> I've got to do a muppet sound because
it feels like a sesame street moment.
Ray, it's pretty clear.
>> Yeah, yeah, it's pretty clear.
But, I mean, you mentioned commercial flights also contribute to it.
And in America, I know people probably have a hard time conceptualizing, well,
I mean, how do you travel between some places without taking a plane.
It's just too far of a drive.
So I just want everyone to imagine the distance between St Louis in Chicago,
it's the same distance as in France between Lyon and Paris, the same distance.
To drive between St Louis and Chicago is about six hours,
that's the only way to travel between those two places.
However, you can get from Lyon to Paris in less than two hours because they
have high speed rails which is something that we have not invested in here
in the United States in a way that we absolutely need to.
Because it's much, much better for the environment than commercial air travel.
Obviously way better for the environment then private jet travel.
But I mean, it's just a more effective way to travel in it,
especially in a country that has such a lack of public transportation.
It would change lives here and
give people the ability to travel who, otherwise would never get to.
Absolutely I mean and we're gonna talk a little bit about the political side in
a bi,t in terms of what Biden is and is not doing.
But we thought he was the chuga chuga choo choo president, you know what I'm saying?
Like, where's the new rail lines?
And yeah, there might be a little bit in the infrastructure package, a little bit,
but not nearly enough.
And by the way, back over here in California between SF and LA,
two major cities, we've been promised a light rail for forever,
and yet Gavin Newsom is like, no, no, he won't.
I mean, he's not even going to l help Medicare for all in this state, but hey,
keep on grandstanding like you wanna.