407
Richest 1% account for more carbon emissions than poorest 66%, report says
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
407 points (97.4% 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
Meanwhile the poorest 66% will suffer far more from climate change than the richest 1%. Heat deaths from wet bulb events, famine, unsafe air…
Time to over throw the rich.
Let's seize their bank account
then you're rich and we need to seize your account
Reminds me of a really funny reddit comment of someone trying to solve inequality: Take the richest person in the world and murder them. They would do this until people will be so afraid of having money that they'll just give it all away, thus eventually achieving equality.
Obviously it's a dogshit idea that could only come from the finest brains of preddit, but it's pretty funny to see a liberal take on communism.
Also that's kinda what China does already and it hasn't really worked to close the wealth gap.
Not once you distribute it evenly. Then there is only equality
Time to eat them
These articles are somewhat disingenuous. It isn't their mansions, their jets, or their yachts. It's because of the amount they have invested in fossil fuels and other industries. A better question is why do they have enough money to own so much.
What? That's where it matters most! Those are the biggest polluters.
If it just talked about their minuscule lifestyles, it would be disingenuous
And as private shareholders they demand those oil companies maximize irresponsible profit at the planet's expense.
When you own something, you bear responsibility for it. Not legally sadly, because these criminals make the laws, but in every other sense.
You don't get to own oil stock and then credibly claim you aren't the problem. No one puts a gun to anyone's head and says take the stake in blood money.
A system that feeds them and is designed to feed them will eventually overfeed. it's called fattening up and we've only been practicing it with animals. Rich people practice it with us except they're the piggies. In a conclusive argument they want to be fattened up to this point so why not treat them like the piggies they deserve.
With one weird trick we could slash carbon emissions by 1/3rd or more! All it would take is a few cuts. 👀
We are the top 1%.
What's unmentioned is that the top 1%, the top 2%, the top 5%, even the top 10% has a disproportionate impact on emissions. That group is made up mostly by the West, but also the rich elite in China, India, Russia, Brazil, Indonesia, etc.
Not sure what you mean by "we". You need roughly 800k$ to be part of the global 1% (and that was in 2018):
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/01/how-much-money-you-need-to-be-part-of-the-1-percent-worldwide.html
It says that the top 1% makes 140k USD....
The most comprehensive study of global climate inequality ever undertaken shows that this elite group, made up of 77 million people including billionaires, millionaires and those paid more than US$140,000 (£112,500) a year
Lemmy probably has a disproportionate number of tech bros who make that or more, but that's wayyy out of reach at least for most Americans.
Ah apparently we are all middle class. But if your bank account has over 100k in it, you are suddenly an "elite group" polluter. There is no difference between the tech-bro living in a manhattan apartment and Hyundai Heavy Industries.
America is ~5% of the global population alone. Europe is twice that. So by living in the west you're in the top ~15% sure, but not necessarily the top 1%.
I mean, I agree as a whole, but I'm assuming that the online population trends upwards socioeconomically. 140k USD isn't that high of a salary for the US coastal elite.
Maybe a fair assumption for developing countries, but in countries where internet access approaches or exceeds 90% idk how you could justify that assumption
99% of people are not the top 1%.
1% of world?
If you earn $60,000 a year after tax and you don't have kids, you're in the richest 1 percent of the world's population. If you have a household income of $130,000 after tax and you've got a partner and one kid, you're also in the richest 1 percent.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/9/15/23874111/charity-philanthropy-americans-global-rich
I mean if you had bothered to open the article, it's in the 2nd paragraph:
The most comprehensive study of global climate inequality ever undertaken shows that this elite group, made up of 77 million people including billionaires, millionaires and those paid more than US$140,000 (£112,500) a year
Why do these articles always mix up wealth and income?
You needed 800k$ in 2018 to be part of the 1% wealthiest.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/01/how-much-money-you-need-to-be-part-of-the-1-percent-worldwide.html
I did, that continues as:
more than US$140,000 (£112,500) a year, accounted for 16% of all CO2 emissions in 2019 – enough to cause more than a million excess deaths due to heat, according to the report.
Which is not the same as the headline.
Top 1% does 16%, bottom 66% does 16%, middle 33% does 68%.
On a per-capita basis, the top 1% is 8x worse than the middle 33% and 66x worse than the bottom 66%.
Not having kids affects how rich you are ?
Less kids means less money spent and more money saved in the long run, so yeah.
So kids have négative value?
Depending on who you ask, yes.
absolutely irrelevant and disingenuous using local income on a global scale. Dude making 130, 000 in Vancouver these days is a broke motherfucker (before tax)
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The richest 1% of humanity is responsible for more carbon emissions than the poorest 66%, with dire consequences for vulnerable communities and global efforts to tackle the climate emergency, a report says.
For the past six months, the Guardian has worked with Oxfam, the Stockholm Environment Institute and other experts on an exclusive basis to produce a special investigation, The Great Carbon Divide.
Over the period from 1990 to 2019, the accumulated emissions of the 1% were equivalent to wiping out last year’s harvests of EU corn, US wheat, Bangladeshi rice and Chinese soya beans.
“The super-rich are plundering and polluting the planet to the point of destruction and it is those who can least afford it who are paying the highest price,” said Chiara Liguori, Oxfam’s senior climate justice policy adviser.
The extravagant carbon footprint of the 0.1% – from superyachts, private jets and mansions to space flights and doomsday bunkers – is 77 times higher than the upper level needed for global warming to peak at 1.5C.
Oxfam International’s interim executive director, Amitabh Behar, said: “Not taxing wealth allows the richest to rob from us, ruin our planet and renege on democracy.
The original article contains 853 words, the summary contains 194 words. Saved 77%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
We should really get rid of them
Water is wet.
Bill Gates: That's why we need to ~~kill~~ depopulate 66% of the world's poor.
Not sure why you chose Bill Gates who is the only one of this club actively trying to help this segment of world society and ostensibly planning to give away his wealth. Bezos, Musk, Jobs, all far more deserving of this.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Now I don't feel as guilty
I think my feed is broken. I'm seeing a lot of articles like this written by a person named Captain something
in other news water is wet