this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023
1110 points (97.0% liked)
World News
32048 readers
1160 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is the best summary I could come up with:
America’s wealthiest people are also some of the world’s biggest polluters – not only because of their massive homes and private jets, but because of the fossil fuels generated by the companies they invest their money in.
That gave a carbon footprint for each dollar of economic activity in the US, which the researchers linked to households using population survey data that showed the industries people work for and their income from wages and investments.
The report also identified “super-emitters.” They are almost exclusively among the wealthiest top 0.1% of Americans, concentrated in industries such as finance, insurance and mining, and produce around 3,000 tons of carbon pollution a year.
Kimberly Nicholas, associate professor of sustainability science at Lund University in Sweden, who was not involved in the report, said the study helps reveal how closely income, especially from investments, is tied to planet-heating pollution.
Sometimes when people talk about ways to tackle the climate crisis, they bring up population control, said Mark Paul, a political economist at Rutgers University who was also not involved in the study.
Globally, the planet-heating pollution produced by billionaires is a million times higher than the average person outside the world’s wealthiest 10%, according to a report last year from the nonprofit Oxfam.
I'm a bot and I'm open source!
It’s a stretch to say that because they invest in a company, that they “produce” the greenhouse gases that that company emits.
Yeah, they could invest elsewhere but it’s just disingenuous to say they’re responsible for all those carbon emissions.
I can see how it's strange on the surface, but ultimately the carbon emissions wouldn't be there if the polluting activity was not funded. So to whom would the carbon emissions be attributed otherwise? Just the CEO?
You could blame the CEO, the employees, the customers, the investors, the city, state, or country, the regulators, the elected officials, etc.
Then there’s the choice of what attribute of those people to use for the accounting. Is it their wealth, their race, their religion, their height? Maybe it’s because they live in cities, or don’t.
It’s an almost arbitrary choice that reflects the value system of the person creating the report — an effort to score points, not solve the problem. I worry that climate action is often hindered by people trying to loop their other pet issues in. Let’s focus on reducing carbon in the atmosphere, please.