It all depends on the person being on the jet. For many great workers, the result of them saving some time greatly offsets the carbon footprint. Without these details, this is just an excuse to point fingers.
Source on the carbon footprint offset from "great workers" by the use of private jets? This sounds incredibly speculative.
What's the carbon impact of a war compared to the carbon impact of commuting to work on technology to discourage war? I'm sure the former is much worse.
What's the value of rhetoric which imposes a false dichotomy?
I'm responding to the false dichotomy, not posing it.
It's a losing side to thus remain trapped in that dichotomy. Better to not validate that pretense as existant, I think. Trying to make things better (outside the solutions provided by the dichotomy) is a conversation closed down in this thread.
Let's not diminish the voices which speak of something better than either of two evils. I understand that the selection should never be just between "bad" and "worse", and seeing such rhetoric decries of misdirection away from more fruitful topics at hand.
> It's a losing side to thus remain trapped in that dichotomy.