Starbucks' new CEO will supercommute 1k miles from California to Seattle

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

CEO supercommute & remote work rules

  • New Starbucks CEO will commute ~1,000 miles by corporate jet about three times a week between California and Seattle.
  • Many see this as hypocritical given Starbucks’ in-office mandates for employees and public ESG/sustainability branding.
  • Some argue this is just an executive perk (like having a driver) and acceptable if the board agreed and results improve; others see it as a symbol of double standards (“remote for me, not for thee”).
  • A back-of-the-envelope estimate in the thread puts the commute at roughly $600k/year in flight costs, ~11% of his pay package.

Environmental impact & hypocrisy concerns

  • Strong criticism that such a commute undermines Starbucks’ sustainability messaging; several call it “outrageous” or incompatible with climate goals.
  • Carbon offsets and biofuels are viewed skeptically: posters argue offsets are often a scam, biofuels aren’t truly carbon neutral, and aircraft lifecycle emissions go beyond fuel.
  • Some note broader elite hypocrisy: private jets to climate conferences, celebrities’ jet use, and policies that push austerity on “peasants” while the ultra-wealthy don’t adjust their lifestyles.

Private jets, taxes, and regulation

  • Suggestions include: mandatory biofuel use, higher jet-fuel taxes (especially for private use), and strict rules for executives of “green” companies.
  • Others point out international fuel tax exemptions under the Chicago Convention and practical issues like fuel tankering and airline pressure on pilots.

NGOs, nuclear, and reputation

  • A long subthread compares this to environmental NGOs’ perceived hypocrisy (e.g., Greenpeace leaders flying to work).
  • Some blame anti-nuclear activism for prolonging fossil fuel use; others defend it as rooted in weapons-testing opposition and past nuclear disasters.
  • Consensus that reputation for “green” organizations is fragile and easily damaged by perceived hypocrisy.

Straws, lifestyle, and accessibility

  • Side debate about plastic vs paper straws: environmental trade-offs, usability problems (e.g., with milkshakes), and dental or disability needs.
  • Several propose: no default straw, small fees, or exemptions for disabled users, and personal reusable utensils as a broader behavior change.