- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
“If everyone had emitted like the bottom 50% of the global population, the world would have seen minimal additional warming since 1990,”
The study assesses the contribution of the highest emitting groups within societies and finds that the top 1% of the wealthiest individuals globally contributed 26 times the global average to increases in monthly 1-in-100-year heat extremes globally and 17 times more to Amazon droughts.
The research sheds new light on the links between income-based emissions inequality and climate injustice, illustrating how the consumption and investments of wealthy individuals have had disproportionate impacts on extreme weather events
Our study shows that extreme climate impacts are not just the result of abstract global emissions, instead we can directly link them to our lifestyle and investment choices, which in turn are linked to wealth,"
You must log in or register to comment.
In 2018 the richest 10% were those with a net worth of USD >93k, so just to be clear, if you’re here and you’re not in school anymore, you’re probably included in that.
People in rich countries don’t realize how few people in the world can live their lifestyle.
The figures you cite must concern specifically the USA. Certainly not the whole world, as article says.Was wrong, it’s for everyone. A nice demonstration of wealth inequality. As others have said, vast numbers of people even in rich countries have nowhere near this wealth. But the property owners do, basically.And in most other “rich countries” very few people (even the richest) are accumulating such sums in their twenties. Partly because the social safety net makes it less urgent, partly because the USA is just a weirdly materialistic society. It really is an outlier in all this, the stats are clear.
But sure, most of us here are going to be in the developed world (1 or 2 billion out of 8) and so probably also the world’s top 10%.
Figure is for the whole world
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/apos-much-money-takes-among-154800844.html
I think a lot of millennials and older zoomers are in negative net worth, so we probably aren’t, actually.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/average-net-worth-generation-120137273.html?guccounter=1
A lot doesn’t equal a majority. I could go full anecdotal as well and tell you that based on the people around me everyone born before 95 is worth at least 100k, it wouldn’t mean shit.
35 and Younger: Median net worth: $39,000; Average net worth: $183,500
That’s quite a spread. Seems to me like there’s quite a disparity, and still the majority of the age group is well under 100k net worth.
If the 50th percentile is 39k, and the average of the whole group is 183k, then the high end must be really high and very small.
That disparity only gets worse in older age groups.
Ages 35 to 44
Median net worth: $135,600 Average net worth: $549,600The vast majority of millennials are in that category, not under 35. Gen Y starts in 81 and ends in 96.
I meant to say younger millennials and zoomers. Not millennials and older zoomers. My bad.
And by the time these younger millennials reach 35+ they’ll also be worth more, just like the people before them weren’t worth over 100k when they were in their 20s and early 30s…
Yes. Exactly. And they aren’t now.
So it’s assumable that they likely aren’t flying around in private jets.
Solve two-thirds of greenhouse gases? Remove 10% of greenhouse asses
You’re part of that group, though.
Well, I’ve had a good run
There is so much to unpack… Just the fact of living in a “developed” country means that it’s citizens’ base footprint are impacted by the infrastructure available - and when it’s Switzerland or Japan it amounts to 4+TonsCO2 per annum, whether you’re above or below the poverty line…
This article seeks to shift the blame of global warming from the <4000 billionaires onto working Americans and EU citizens that are not privlaged enough to stop using the only systems available to them.
It’s my understanding that, at least in the USA, a lot of the emissions of the 10% is simply that they commute to work by car, which is one of the least efficient ways to transport a single person. If there was more public transportation infrastructure, it would probably be closer to the top 2-3% that cause the majority of pollution.
Yeah but, like, how would we even do that? Magic carpets? Flying horses? It’s just an unsolvable problem unless you had some sort of magical system of mythical vessels that took large groups of people where they needed to go reliably that was easy to use but that’s bordering on communism and is incredibly woke. Its just not possible!
Or the parasites could you know, bring back WFH as a starting point. Costs nothing and works great?
“The study also emphasizes the importance of emissions embedded in financial investments,”
it’s mostly not from cars
“The study also emphasizes the importance of emissions embedded in financial investments,”.
it’s not them personally, but they own the corporations that are selling products to everyone else.
if the bottom 90% demanded only sustainable products, and:or just didn’t buy from heavy polluters, that would make all the difference
There is no demanding under capitalism. Working people don’t have any leverage over corpos, you either eat what they sell you, or die. Working people in democracies have some say on how government operates, which in turn has leverage over corpos. But working people were convinced to stay out of politics, so corpos are buying the governments.
defeatism is really sexy and all… but not very useful.
there’s more than one angle of attack… yes capitalism is bad and it’s replacement is the best thing to strive for….
that doesn’t mean that individuals can’t make more environmentally conscious choices.but before i get into the communist revolution with you, the point is the lower 90% still buy plastic and olive oil from other continents and pretending like the owners of the olive oil companies are the only problem is pure ignorance
shoot all of the olive oil ceo’s in the head and you’ll still have olive oil companies shipping olive oil. if people refuse that and only use locally sourced things that would be the end of olive oil exports.
green washing exists because of the demand for greener products… of course, people would have to pay more attention than just a label that says “we do some nice things with 1 penny per billion dollars earned!”.
it’s also quite satisfying to grow a garden… especially a community garden….
or you could sit around grumbling that nothing can be possibly be done while sucking on a disposable vape cartridge… throw your trash in the ocean because nothing can possibly be done… use disposable everything because nothing can be done. it’s all capitalism’s fault and there’s absolutely nothing you could do.
Good news for Leo — he can make a difference.
Eat them
That’s you and me.
Okay. Eat me :)
Global workers revolution is the only solution
How about instead of turning this issue into class warfare as well, they just point out that CORPORATIONS are driving 90% of global emissions. Said corporations love studies like this because then they can blame the population by spewing such nonsense as “well if you didn’t buy our product we wouldn’t create the emissions”.
There you have it folks, if you just stopped eating food, global warming would be solved. It couldn’t POSSIBLY be that governemnts should create things like emissions standards to drive down pollution.
What’s that 70% of global emissions come from just 100 companies? Nope, it’s the richest 10% of the population that need to fix this, not the corporations (which in turn would punish the .1% who make all their wealth off those companies). Joe Shmoe and his wife making a combined $100k/year need to stop driving their car and ride that bus, that’ll SURELY fix the problem.
