this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2024
298 points (99.3% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

7086 readers
600 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: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

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
all 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Spendrill@lemm.ee 43 points 1 year ago (4 children)

OK so it's time to say the quiet part out loud: the reason that governments have so far held off on taxing billionaires at 1% or 2% is the fear that they might spend 2% or 3% against those governments in revenge.

[–] CountVon@sh.itjust.works 31 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Billionaires, as a class, are likely already spending that much or more on lobbying for lower taxes. Or really lobbying for the status quo, since existing loopholes allow them to achieve an ultra low or even 0% effective tax with alarming regularity. The threat they make is wealth flight. "If you raise our taxes we'll take all our wealth somewhere else!" As a result taxes on the ultrarich have essentially been a global race to the bottom for decades. At least now there finally seems to be some indications that wealth inequality cannot be ignored the way it has been for so long. My hope is that we'll eventually see some international framework that effectively raise the tax floor for the 1%. It won't cover every nation, but if it encompasses the EU, US, Commonwealth and other aligned countries then that would go a long way.

[–] _edge@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And what Billionaire wants to live in a shit-hole country? If governments are committed, they can find a way. Oh, you want to travel to the EU? What a shame that the visa process requires some transparency...

[–] CountVon@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago

That's exactly it. If affluent countries can get on the same page, they can neutralize the "wealth flight" argument and we can start shifting the balance back toward something that remotely resembles equality.

[–] Spendrill@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you want to insure yourself against capital flight go for a Land Value Tax. Let 'em shove a hectare of land in their luggage.

[–] ptz@dubvee.org 21 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Well, just tax them at 99%

Lots of problems solved..

[–] WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 year ago

Curse them to a life of normal levels of phenomenal wealth! Justice! /s

[–] Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 year ago

You really could. They have a personal wealth that rivals some nations GDP. Paying almost every penny they make in profit to maintain that level of privilege is fine by me.

[–] Icalasari@fedia.io 5 points 1 year ago

I for one would be all for a wealth cap for all beings considered people

This would ALSO include companies if they want to continue with the being people thing

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago

I love these kinds of debates because it's more or less an acknowledgement that none of these countries (including highly developed first world countries) are democratic and are instead either controlled or heavily influenced by the wealthy class and not by the common people.

[–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

The current lack of taxes on the super rich is more radical I’d say

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There are 2360 dollar billionaires in the world and 211,275 people with a net worth of over 30 million dollars. The 100 super-rich families are way to few.

Other then that we could do something like CBAM. Every country without a wealth tax has to pay extra tarrifs, for all goods and products sold to countries that are members. Get the US, EU or China on board with that and we will say a lot more taxes. Tax heavens can be bullied.

[–] SplashJackson@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

That IS a radical plan. Totally rad, even!

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

i doubt this is happening so soon, Lula's party was impeached before for way less of an attack at the local burgeoise.

it was Dilma back then but things havent changed much, if anything we are in a less favorable position now. Lula is leading a burgeoise coalition government right now.

also: taxing the rich is nothing radical, despite what the guardian says. think ending capitalism if you want to call something radical.