this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2023
688 points (98.3% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
7133 readers
661 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So, the study theyre citing is pretty flawed. It starts with an assumption that emissions strictly correlate with income, it doesnt actually break down or analyze emissions sources. It just takes the total emissions of a country and divides that up by income. Its economic analysis. But that's not how emissions work. A million dollar car isnt gonna emit 100 times more than a 10k car. The cows for their wagyu steaks arent producing more methane than cows ending up at Mcdonalds.
The wealthy absolutely emit more through flights and boats. Someone with a private jet is likely emitting hundreds of times more emissions than a regular person. But theres not that many private jets. Ban all private jets, but it wont even register on global emissions totals.
There's a ton of academic research showing the correlation between income and emissions.
There are also a ton of actions which are necessary to get to zero emissions but not sufficient. Banning private jets is one.
Banning private jets is so far down the long-tail of emissions-lowering strategies that it's barely even worth considering. Heck, it might even be bad to consider it because doing so might serve to distract from the things we actually need to do.
The problem isn't just billionaire-level income correlated with billionaire-level emissions; the problem is American middle-class-level income correlated with American middle-class-level emissions, too! We -- typical, normal Americans -- are the global rich people the article's talking about. The "big barrier to stabilizing the climate" isn't the robber-baron who doesn't want to give up his private jet; it's the suburban soccer mom who doesn't want to trade her ~~minivan~~ crossover SUV for a cargo bike.
It's both, and having billionaires cut their incredibly high emissions makes it politically possible to get the rest of the population on board
Yeah, but that assumes you can succeed in forcing the billionaires to cut their incredibly high emissions. I'm not sure we can afford the time spent picking that fight.
No, the study's methodology is fine. Although you're correct to point out that the million-dollar car doesn't pollute much more than the $10K car and the wagyu cow doesn't fart more than the McDonald's-destined cow, what you don't realize is that it really is even the $10K car and the McDonalds cow that are the problem! We're not just talking about billionaires here; we're talking about the global 10%, which starts at surprisingly low income or net worth and includes most "middle-class" Americans!
You are part of the problem. I am part of the problem. It's not just Bezos and shit who need to change; it's us.
Mostly it is bigger houses, driving bigger cars, flying more to vacations and well buying more in general. We are talking about thte top 10% globally here. They are not crazy billionaires and most do not own private jets or boats.