World's Richest 1% Emit As Much Carbon As Bottom Two-Thirds, Report Finds (phys.org) 214
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Phys.Org: The richest one percent of the global population are responsible for the same amount of carbon emissions as the world's poorest two-thirds, or five billion people, according to an analysis published Sunday by the nonprofit Oxfam International. [...] Among the key findings of this study are that the richest one percent globally -- 77 million people -- were responsible for 16 percent of global emissions related to their consumption. That is the same share as the bottom 66 percent of the global population by income, or 5.11 billion people. The income threshold for being among the global top one percent was adjusted by country using purchasing power parity -- for example in the United States the threshold would be $140,000, whereas the Kenyan equivalent would be about $40,000. Within country analyses also painted very stark pictures.
For example, in France, the richest one percent emit as much carbon in one year as the poorest 50 percent in 10 years. Excluding the carbon associated with his investments, Bernard Arnault, the billionaire founder of Louis Vuitton and richest man in France, has a footprint 1,270 times greater than that of the average Frenchman. The key message, according to Lawson, was that policy actions must be progressive. These measures could include, for example, a tax on flying more than ten times a year, or a tax on non-green investments that is much higher than the tax on green investments.
While the current report focused on carbon linked only to individual consumption, "the personal consumption of the super-rich is dwarfed by emissions resulting from their investments in companies," the report found. Nor are the wealthy invested in polluting industries at a similar ratio to any given investor -- billionaires are twice as likely to be invested in polluting industries than the average for the Standard & Poor 500, previous Oxfam research has shown.
For example, in France, the richest one percent emit as much carbon in one year as the poorest 50 percent in 10 years. Excluding the carbon associated with his investments, Bernard Arnault, the billionaire founder of Louis Vuitton and richest man in France, has a footprint 1,270 times greater than that of the average Frenchman. The key message, according to Lawson, was that policy actions must be progressive. These measures could include, for example, a tax on flying more than ten times a year, or a tax on non-green investments that is much higher than the tax on green investments.
While the current report focused on carbon linked only to individual consumption, "the personal consumption of the super-rich is dwarfed by emissions resulting from their investments in companies," the report found. Nor are the wealthy invested in polluting industries at a similar ratio to any given investor -- billionaires are twice as likely to be invested in polluting industries than the average for the Standard & Poor 500, previous Oxfam research has shown.
Well (Score:4, Funny)
This story is certainly going to trigger all the temporarily embarrassed billionaires that frequent this site.
Excuse me while I grab some popcorn.
Re:Well (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't confuse car dependence for wealth. If the billionaires didn't have to worry about being able to transport scabs to the factory, we'd all be traveling by foot.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying that Ford started a car company so his workers could get to his car factory... so he could uh ... sell cars to his workers...?
mmm hmmmm....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Being destitute is very nonpolluting.
Really? Burning coal and wood in a fire for heat and cooking both reduces the amount of plant mass that converts CO2 and directly releases CO2. Did anyone check the study to see if they took this into account, or If they only looked at fossil fuel use and electricity generation?
Re: (Score:2)
No need to identify with billionaires. Any American who owns a car and flies occasionally is way closer to the billionaires than to the bottom 50% or so that live in a hovel and travel by foot. Being destitute is very nonpolluting.
That doesn't seem likely.
A study examining the lifestyle emissions of 20 billionaires (18 of them men, and all of them white) found that each produced an average of over 8,000 tonnes of CO2 in oneyear [openrepository.com]
The top 0.1% averaged around 220t/year
Top 1 % around 75t/year
Top 10% around 25t/year
Top 1% and 10% are closer to zero than they are the billionaires at the top.
Re: (Score:2)
The study adjusted for income by country. So......based on ratio differences still apply even for Americans who own a car.
Re: (Score:2)
Not many grandchildren would be left at those population levels.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's Satanist propaganda. Population collapse would lead to the extinction of our species within 2 generations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's Satanist propaganda. Population collapse would lead to the extinction of our species within 2 generations.
Wow, this is a lot of wrong in a short statement. Look at history a bit. We've had population collapses many times in our history, and always spring back from it. So long as there is a set of breeders, we will breed. Even if the world is a burned out husk, we'll breed. And all it takes is fifteen to twenty years of life to pop a new generation.
If you're extra-special and have bought into the "voluntary extinction" mantra, sure, stopping all breeding today would lead to extinction. Good luck with that task t
Re:Well (Score:4)
Imagine how well our grandchildren could live if we just stopped breeding and expanding for territorial control
Most of the world is below or near replacement level birth rates.
Only a handful of countries are trying to expand their territorial control. Most countries have no desire to take land from their neighbors.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because what makes society rich is when the majority of it is old.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine how well our grandchildren could live if we just stopped breeding and expanding for territorial control...
I imagine that people that stopped breeding won't have grandchildren. I see all kinds of problems with the premise you laid out but that is the biggest and most obvious.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Imagine if we had better schooling, and people knew how to parse, "if we just stopped breeding and expanding for territorial control"
But no, you're correct, you figured out the glaring flaw in my plan, I was suggesting we stop breeding entirely.
Dear god, how do you handle being so smart and having to slum it with us morons? /piss off, idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
Birth rates have been falling globally for years, and we are due to level off around 2100 at 11-12 billion people.
That is sustainable IF we make the effort to farm efficiently and cleanly.
We don't really have a choice, we either do it or something much worse happens - catastrophic climate change, resource wars, billions killed.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the Club of Rome era estimate was 1 billion with democracy, and with authoritarianism, maybe 2 billion. I'm not sure whether those numbers have since been changed? I also thought that the current overshoot of 8 billion was completely predictable, and is on account of systems allowing other systems to overshoot the actual capacity. Just because we have 8 billion now does not mean that 8 billion is in anyway sustainable or in anyway not going to lead to an enormous crash sooner or later. The problem
Re:Well (Score:4, Insightful)
If you were to leave your mom's basement (seems that the only way you could come up such drivel), you'd see that farming is nothing like it used to be. American alone fed much of the world post-WWII and we still had surplus food. Automation and chemistry radically changed what we can do per acre. Most of the world isn't farming with a horse or an ox anymore.
FAO warns 90 per cent of Earth’s topsoil at risk by 2050 [un.org]
True, I'm not a farmer, but UN (and others) are worried.
Thank Evolution (Score:2)
I mean, we'll all be dead but apparently making sure you leave behind as many people who look and think like you as possible is far more important than leaving the planet a nice place for them.
That's nature for you: we are the products of a few billion years of evolution which is a process that deliberately selects for organisms that produce the most offspring. Even in your post, you start with "Imagine how well our grandchildren could live..." well the chances are they would not be _your_ grandchildren if we did what you are suggesting so even you seem to be struggling to accept the concept!
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine how well our grandchildren could live if we just stopped breeding and expanding for territorial control... get the population down to 10m or so and we could all live like the 1st-world upper-middle class if we chose to do so. The automation required isn't that far off.
The problem you've got is that for the overwhelming majority of the worlds population, kids are the only means of retirement. This is why most of the western world has under 2 children per woman and places like Colombia have 4. Where kids are cheap to have and parents rely on children working to support them in old age, they're incentivised to have more children.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Well (Score:2)
Don't be ridiculous. The only way a permanent settlement will exist in the moon is if it is absolutely, one hundred percent self-sufficient. Everything, literally everything. Think of all the spare parts you will ever possibly need and the infrastructure needed to build them, and then the secondary and tertiary infrastructure needed to maintain THAT infrastructure.
It simply is not possible for the foreseeable future, and probably not ever. Even your "air" will slowly be lost to the vacuum, requiring replace
Re: (Score:2)
Colonizing another planet doesn't mean solving a lot of these problems all at once, but working towards self-sufficiency. NASA and other space organizations are already working diligently to solve the the problems you describe because they know they need to be solved. As an example, you don't need to encase an entire planet in an atmosphere. You can use geodesic domes instead. Underground facilities can provide protection from the sun. Plants and other types of food can be grown with the use of greenhouse l
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds great!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine how well our grandchildren could live if we just stopped breeding and expanding for territorial control...
Imagine what language they will speak, and ideologies they will adopt because others won't subscribe to this delusion.
Re: (Score:2)
get the population down to 10m or so and we could all live like the 1st-world upper-middle class if we chose to do so. The automation required isn't that far off.
No we couldn't, and yes it is.
Your math ignores the interest factor. In order to get really good at something you have to be interested in it. Not everyone is interested in everything. In order to have enough people to be that interested in all of the things you need to advance in order to maintain a high technological society you need many more than that number of people.
If you had the mythical technology to maintain itself indefinitely (see Ringworld for one vision of how that could fall apart, though) an
Re: (Score:3)
While it's easy in science fiction to imagine an advanced, wealthy global economy with only a hundred million people (ten might a stretch), what's hard to imagine is getting there from here without billions of people experiencing catastrophic economic trauma. Growth in population creates a bias toward economic growth which is helpful to enterprises. If you sell widgets and in a decade the population is 1% larger, all things being equal you can expect to sell 1% more widgets. Conversely if the population i
Re: (Score:3)
get the population down to 10m or so and we could all live like the 1st-world upper-middle class if we chose to do so.
I don't think a population that small could maintain our current knowledge base and technological capabilities, and it certainly couldn't advance them. We tend to underestimate the enormous body of undocumented knowledge that is distributed throughout the complex and deep supply chain that is required.
Re: (Score:2)
... and by "temporarily embarrassed billionaires" you mean (checks TFS) Americans who earn $140,000/year.
I hope you brought enough popcorn to share with all of them.
Re: (Score:2)
$140k is for a household with two adults and kids.
For an individual, you are in the world's top 1% if you make half that amount.
Re: (Score:2)
On what do you base that assertion? Their methodology note is couched in terms of individuals, not notional family groups.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Without reading the article, it should embarrass most of the readers.
World's richest 1% is a huge person of the EU and North America.
Re: (Score:2)
This story is certainly going to trigger all the temporarily embarrassed billionaires that frequent this site.
From TFS: The income threshold for being among the global top one percent was adjusted by country using purchasing power parity -- for example in the United States the threshold would be $140,000. That's not "billionaire" income. Anyone in the US who's been working in the tech sector for more than a few years is likely to qualify.
Re: (Score:3)
All of you seem to be unfamiliar with the irony of the quote I paraphrased.
Google "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" to find out who the quote is actually talking about.
Oh, I know the meaning of the term; I just don't believe that most of the people who are opposed to social welfare programs feel that way just because they think they're going to be rich someday. A lot of poor people are too proud to accept what they consider "charity", and a lot of middle class people feel that those that find themselves under water due to poor decisions shouldn't be bailed out. Personally, I don't mind paying into a system that helps those who need it, because I've had my share of good fo
Suprised it's that little. (Score:3)
The top 1% are emitting 16% of the CO2... so, they're only 16 times worse than the average? I'd expect that their carbon emissions would track with their wealth, and they'd emit a lot more than just 16 times the average
Re: (Score:2)
The top 1% are emitting 16% of the CO2... so, they're only 16 times worse than the average?
The average includes billions of rice farmers in Asia and subsistence maize farmers in Africa.
The top 1% are only slightly above the average American or European.
For a single person, an income of $60k puts you in the world's top 1%.
If you live in the West, you have way more in common with the 1% than you do with the average human.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By my count, there's a minimum of 800M people in the "West". Even if 100% of t
Re:Suprised it's that little. (Score:4, Interesting)
Why would co2 track wealth?
I live a less carbon intensive life now than when I was a working slob like most people. I am an evil 1%er.
Before I retired I drove 2 hours a day, filled my tank twice a week, had to buy new clothes shoes etc regularly as things wore out, had to keep my computer up to date and on n on and on.
Now I'm fucking rich. My shoes will last forever because I'm barefoot most days. Don't go through razors anymore, no one cares if I'm not shaved. I drive a Tesla I power through my roof solar which covers all my electricity. I don't fly every month for business anymore. And so on.
My money doesn't generate co2. I ran out of places to put money so last week I put a million in a few CDs. How much co2 does a CD make? If I had put 10 million into CDs would they make 10x more co2?
No. It's all just bits in a computer. They make no co2 at all. I'll bet anything my carbon footprint is a small fraction of yours or anyone else with a job.
Re: (Score:2)
Where is your wealth?
Do you own shares of any company, directly or indirectly?
That Oxfam report will assign you a share of that companies emissions.
Re: (Score:2)
It's in a lot of things. They can assign me anything they want. They can assign me a new gander, too, but that doesn't make it true.
If my money was in all cash sitting under my bed in stacks of $1000 bills would they assign me the co2 of printing the bills? *eye roll*
I have a few million sitting in a cash account earning 5%. How is that a co2 generator?
I have a few gold bars sitting in a safe deposit box. How are they generating co2?
Am I getting charged co2 for the tree in my backyard that died last ye
Re: Suprised it's that little. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would co2 track wealth?
Wealth is the ability to buy things. Producing things and using things requires energy. Energy production, by current methods, produces carbon dioxide. Whatever you do with your money, it produces carbon dioxide.
Even if you keep you money and don't spend it, it eventually goes to your heirs who spend it and produce carbon dioxide.
Re: (Score:2)
They're playing with numbers. The summary said "the personal consumption of the super-rich is dwarfed by emissions resulting from their investments in companies". They're attributing the pollution of companies to the stockholders of those companies. The actual personal co2 footprint of those stockholders is small enough to be almost irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
It is called having a job. If I made less money working.... I'd still be working, making co2, not having solar, burning gas in my car and flying all the time.
What was your point?
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all, I am definitely away smarter than you. And not easily triggered by a silly internet name, either.
Why do we know this? You entire "argument" is pure as hominem based solely on my internet name. You lost the moment you hit the submit button.
Next time either say something worth all those bits or just move along. You've added nothing here.
Re: (Score:3)
I caused no more co2 than anyone else who worked hard. And if I didn't make a fuck ton of money I'd still be working just as hard and among way more co2 than I do now. Whatever point you were trying to make fell flat.
Maybe we should have UBI and magically make stuff from thin air with no one working. We can just print wealth, right?
You AC guys are so hilarious. You -know- you're posting stupid shit so slap that AC button really hard. Why not just ignore me or post something real? What is it about you
Re: (Score:2)
Oh that's me. I'm smarter than you, AC. Because most rich people don't own yachts and travel the world constantly and the rest.
The requirement to be a global 1%er is very low and certainly doesn't cover yachts and mansions and travel. You could have looked this up before posting but instead decided that spewing as AC was better.
But, that's why I'm here, to explain reality to my Dunning Kruger friends like you.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm REALLY stupid but still way smarter than you.
The bottom half of this planet eats rice and lives in hovels. Is that your goal for everyone? They also outbreed wealthier nations because the death rate of their children is so high and they need children to support them in old age.
This is reaaaaaallly basic stuff, dumb AC. Go google next time instead of,posting your dumb nonsense.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not smart. Not at all. I'm fucking dumber than a sack of wet shit. I am just way smarter than you, AC.
Whoooosh, AC!
And yes, an anecdote, duh. It is called a counter example. Enjoy your day. I'm enjoying mine. I get pleasure educating ignorant people such as yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
Whoosh AC still doesn't understand that the global top 1% can't afford mansions and yachts and other billionaire shit.
So dumb, so lame, so ignorant. You're only one google away from reality and truth yet instead you smash the "I'm an ignorant troll" button, and post your dumb AC shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would they? Do you think Elon Musk's house is 241000 times larger than yours? Require 241000 times the number of AC units?
The relationship between wealth and energy consumption is not linear. That and you also forget how many poor people you are. The average includes people whose kids die of starvation in Africa, who don't have access to basic sanitation or safe drinking water. The world is full of those people. Being a homeless person in the west makes you wealthier than average.
This 1% figure, it incl
Re: (Score:2)
The 1% might own all the factories and power plants, but the emissions of those constructions are spread out over all the people who buy the stuff produced and use the power generated.
Calculation [Re:Suprised it's that little.] (Score:2)
Wrong math. The article states that 1% (77 million people) of the population are emitting the same 16% of the CO2 as the bottom 5.1 billion. So, in average, every person from the first group emits as much as 66,23x more than a person in the latter group.
You're doing a different calculation. I'm not comparing the top 1% to the bottom 67%. I'm comparing the top 1% to the average,
If the top 1% are emitting 16% of the CO2, they are emitting 16 times as much as the average. That's not really a calculation that you can challenge, just arithmetic.
Whose Carbon Footprint (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Lets be clear, you can essentially directly correlate someone's carbon footprint with their wealth. If we want to reduce humanities collective carbon footprint we aren't going to do that without reducing its collective wealth.
Somehow, I don't think it works that way. If it did, I could pollute more to be wealthier!
And if there is no money to be made, it isn't happening.
So just like sex, then?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's a causative effect and not a correlation, so it does not go 1:1 but more like through a chain of events.
Basically the less you care about economic viability and ecological impact, the more you can sell cheap useless junk or advertising for said shit, or use nasty chemicals to produce things even cheaper, or ideally you do a combination of all the above.
And then you can burn all your riches on important business flights and that kind of stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
If A causes B, that doesn't mean you can vary B to change A.
It may not need to be explained, but... if "A" causes "B," and one can change "B" without changing "A," then "A" doesn't really cause "B" (at least, not entirely; there must other factors in play).
Re: (Score:3)
Lets be clear, you can essentially directly correlate someone's carbon footprint with their wealth.
Income in Singapore is about the same as in America, but the per capita carbon emissions are less than half.
Re: (Score:2)
"Replacing ICE with electric cars" certainly made the world's richest man. I don't know how you say its not creating wealth; its created trillions.
This is my shocked face! (Score:2)
Poor people take public transit, ride bicycles, or walk. They rent (and often share) accommodation in large buildings which are typically more efficiently heated and cooled than a home... and that's in wealthy places. The world's exceptionally poor live in shacks often cobbled together from what richer folk have discarded. They certainly can't afford to frequently consume expensive foods that come with large environmental impacts, either. They eat locally-sourced stuff because they have to.
I mean, where
Re: (Score:2)
Poor people take public transit, ride bicycles, or walk. They rent (and often share) accommodation in large buildings which are typically more efficiently heated and cooled than a home... and that's in wealthy places. The world's exceptionally poor live in shacks often cobbled together from what richer folk have discarded. They certainly can't afford to frequently consume expensive foods that come with large environmental impacts, either. They eat locally-sourced stuff because they have to.
I mean, where the hell are poor people supposed to get a giant SUV to drive from their gas-heated McMansion to their excessively-large power boat?
Well, the poor people are supposed to help the rich create the carbon footprint.
It's not the rich who build and run the buildings, the airplanes and take the carbon out of the ground. It's the millions of poor people who all serve the few rich people.
Who ever dies: (Score:2)
having released the most carbon, wins!
Diet (Score:2)
What are they eating?!
Sad (Score:2)
Eat the rich (Score:2)
The future of this planet depends on it.
Re: (Score:2)
You should care as much about the history of this planet as you do it's future.
What you're suggesting has never worked out.
You just end up with everybody being poorer.
Like most such rants, there are agendas (Score:2)
These things are always proffered as apparently neutral people making unbiased recommendations, but they're nothing of the sort.
I'm absolutely no fan of the super-wealthy with their often over-the-top lifestyles, but articles like this always contain structural biases that make them untrustworthy. For example, we're told the super-rich pollute much more than the poor as though [a] the super-rich are all engaged in equal activities, [b] there's no up-side to the actions of the super-rich, [c] the poor are vi
Re: (Score:2)
Who says that it's the same when Elon Musk takes a private jet between a Tesla facility and Boca Chica that this is on-par with the Kardashians taking a private jet from a Paris fashion shoot to a tropical vacation?
They are both unnecessary. Musk leads best from far away. Arguably Musk's travel is worse because when he shows up they have to assign him wranglers to stop him from fucking things up.
What to do with this information? (Score:2)
It is interesting that the top 1% of the population by wealth emit as much CO2 as the bottom 66% by wealth but is this information useful in any way?
I read some of the comments so far and found a few mentions of Elon Musk, mentioning that he got much of his wealth from selling electric cars, solar PV panels, and battery packs to other people with a lot of money. The implication is that people with a lot of money only make the world worse but Elon Musk is making the world better by giving people the product
Re: (Score:2)
The report it is based on has no actual metrics on what the "top 1%" emit. They just assume it
How do we allocate country level consumption emissions to individuals?
We divide national consumption emissions among individuals based solely on their income. We assume that above a certain base level of emissions (floor) and below a certain maximum emissions level (ceiling), emissions increase in proportion to income. We assume that individuals in the same income percentile in each country generate the same per c
Good (Score:2)
Imagine if every 1% emmited that much, including the bottom.
Not a real study (Score:2)
I haven't even tried to get into the methodology, which I'm sure is flawed, but this report is just an opinion piece by activists (Greta Thunberg and Njoki Njehu). It's annoying to read it, as it conflates the idea with activism unrelated to climate, such as mentioning that the 20 wealthiest people are all white and 90% men.
This doesn't mean that the ideas are bad. Taxing the rich more is certainly a good idea. However, it does make it harder for me to take this seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't even tried to get into the methodology, which I'm sure is flawed, but this report is just an opinion piece by activists (Greta Thunberg and Njoki Njehu). It's annoying to read it, as it conflates the idea with activism unrelated to climate, such as mentioning that the 20 wealthiest people are all white and 90% men.
This doesn't mean that the ideas are bad. Taxing the rich more is certainly a good idea. However, it does make it harder for me to take this seriously.
The report is based on https://emissions-inequality.o... [emissions-inequality.org], but if you read the FAQ you can see it's based on bullshit and assumptions
Re: (Score:2)
How much in taxes is "enough"?
The Oxfam report proposes increasing income tax by 60 percentage points, and for the governments to use the money to invest in renewable energy.
Laffer Stupidity (Score:2)
The Laffer Curve is a massively flawed model extrapolation. It makes huge assumptions about how the economy would reorganise itself as you move away from current taxation levels, and we know these are not true. For example, you couldn't have a modern industrial society with 0% taxation. Either society would collapse and burn or, more than likely, alternative governance structures funded by public resource pooling would appear meaning you're not at 0% taxation. This would likely happen long before you got to
Two thirds of emissions by top third w/o top 1% (Score:2)
If all of the top 1% and the bottom two thirds ceased all emissions, that would still leave us with two thirds of the emissions, caused by you and me, people in the global top third by wealth. You still have to change. The rich aren't single-handedly destroying the planet. By all means, get the rich to pay for lots of it, but you're not off the hook.
Re: (Score:2)
If all of the top 1% and the bottom two thirds ceased all emissions, that would still leave us with two thirds of the emissions, caused by you and me, people in the global top third by wealth. You still have to change. The rich aren't single-handedly destroying the planet. By all means, get the rich to pay for lots of it, but you're not off the hook.
Exactly this. Don't get me wrong, I hate billionaires as much as the next guy, but this is just a distraction piece. All this narrative does is encourage blaming someone else instead of making meaningful change.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Your view of reality is absurd.
GM, Firestone Tire, Standard Oil of California (through a subsidiary), Federal Engineering, Phillips Petroleum, and Mack Trucks were convicted of conspiracy [wikipedia.org] for a scheme in which they destroyed profitable public transportation systems (mostly rail lines) all over the country in order to increase demand for their products. But corporations are just legal fictions, they do not actually do anything as they are words on a page. In fact humans do things, and it's the humans running
Some of them have the gall to tell us how to live (Score:2)
If life were fair... (Score:2)
In general, dealing with carbon dioxide emissions ultimately means having to do something about first world living standards. Just about everything that we've become accustomed to in the developed world uses energy and lots of it.
Headlines like this only give me hope in the thinking that, if the world was fair, and a tax were equitably applied, then clearly it should affect the wealthiest far more than even the middle classes, as the headlines suggest that the wealthiest are responsible for significantly mo
Re: (Score:2)
The problem isn't energy consumption. It's carbon-dioxide emissions.
What a load of crap (Score:2, Insightful)
And Slashdot continues to post more shite that the Editors can't be bothered to look at.
Irrelevant (Score:2)
I think there is bad ideas behind this report.
First, it's the idea of compare top against bottom. While it is interesting just from a pure number perspective, it push the idea that the poverty is caused by the wealthiness. And the reality is a lot more complex than that.
Let's start about the emissions - consumption relationship. If emissions are bad, and consumption implies emissions, then the only definite solution is no consumption ergo, massive poverty or, in extreme, extinction.
Fortunately for us, it's
The world is full of poor people (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder how many Slashdotters are going to grab pitchforks without realising they are in the richest 1% the article is talking about. The world has a lot and I really mean a *LOT* of poor people in it. If you're here, talking on a computer in the comfort of your home, chances are you're in the 1%.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm in someone else's home (I'm a renter) and I'm not in the global 1%.
My emissions are much higher than people living in a mud hut somewhere, but I would be happy to live a lifestyle where they are lower. Unfortunately, we can't have functional public transportation in the USA, so I have to drive to work. And they don't let me have enough money to buy an EV that would do the job given my half hour commute, nor can I afford the rents where I would live closer. I am not being offered choices which would allo
Re: (Score:2)
I used to not own a car and took public transportation and walked everywhere.
Then the pandemic hit and all the bus routes went away and still have not come back.
I was forced to buy a car and by doing so have at least doubled my carbon footprint....
Re: (Score:2)
I reject that notion. I'm just sitting here at Starbucks, drinking my usual Venti Latte Skim while my new Tesla Model X is outside charging. I'm part of the solution, not the problem!
Get off my well-manicured lawn, Jorge' just overseeded it yesterday!
140k is the threshold??+developing world metrics (Score:2)
Such bullshit (Score:2)
Did anyone read the information it is based on? It's mostly bullshit and assumptions. From https://emissions-inequality.o... [emissions-inequality.org] :
How do we allocate country level consumption emissions to individuals?
We divide national consumption emissions among individuals based solely on their income. We ASSUME that above a certain base level of emissions (floor) and below a certain maximum emissions level (ceiling), emissions increase in proportion to income. We ASSUME that individuals in the same income percentile in eac
Always a Classic (Score:2)
Here's your inconvenient truth. [hollywoodreporter.com]
It must have been Tipper's vibrator.
Re: (Score:2)
> when its effects on the atmosphere is with in the margin of error of water vaper. Think about that.
Sorta sounds like you just made that up, or ignore the constant application of CO2 over temporary water vapor
> People must believe that prior to humans, the climate was a constant...
Nope, but they believe the climate changes much more slowly than it's changing now (based on records).
> It does not help, that many people do not know what CO2 is. They think it's CO(Carbon Monoxide)
Maybe a few people do
Re: The 1%ers are Climate-Deniers... (Score:3)
https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:3)
> They take on massive risk and deserve the reward.
No, we middle-class stock purchasers do (although there are privately owned companies).
But anyhow the stat is misleading as they are not counting personal emissions, but rather that of the companies they own. Polluting companies are generally going to pollute regardless of who owns them. If we locked up the 1%, these emissions would probably still happen.
Re: Yes because the 1% are creating the wealth (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They take on massive risk and deserve the reward.
All those billionaires with purple hearts and PTSD. Why, I once met a billionaire that still had shell fragments in his head from a board meeting that went horrible wrong.