10 ms·

World's richest 1% cause double CO2 emissions of poorest 50%, says Oxfam

81 points by ciconia 6y ago

Cthulhu_ 6y ago
That's 15% and 7% of the CO2 emissions; where is the other 73%? This is pointing blame at the individuals, but individuals can't make a statistically significant impact on the numbers; that's down to governments and legislations. Corporations won't regulate themselves wrt emissions if there's no incentive or legislation for it, not unless they can actually earn money from it. And I know some just sell off their CO2 emissions rights.
- KingOfCoders 6y ago
  [Edit] If you're right with the 73% ... The middle 73% is with the middle, aka target of the article - don't anger the people who pay your bills.
  - ctrl-j 6y ago
    I find it hard to believe that the "middle" 49% produce 73% of the emissions, while the top 1% only produce 15% While I think it's still best for us all to reduce where we can - I also agree that the individual would quickly change their habits if corporations started to charge a sustainable price for their goods instead of leveraging the planets future.
    - KingOfCoders 6y ago
      Well, with that numbers the top 1% produces 15x their share of emissions, the 49% produce 1.5x their share of emissions. So the top 1% produce 10x more emissions compared to the middle. Doesn't sound suspicious to me, does it to you?
_Microft 6y ago
Direct link to the english report, PDF, 12 pages, 610kB: https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/621052/mb-confronting-carbon-inequality-210920-en.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10... Here is the Oxfam press release: https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-richest-1-percent-more-double-emissions-poorest-half-humanity https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-ric... Here is the report in other languages (english, spanish, french): https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/handle/10546/621052 https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/handle/10546/621052
- Udik 6y ago
  It's telling that the actions proposed by the report are a laundry list of socialist reforms (I mean socialist in a neutral, technical way: no judgement implied). Examples: "wealth taxes", "public investment, including to create decent job guarantees, alongside working-time reductions", "banning advertising in public spaces", "developing a wider set of gender-transformative indicators of economic progress", "social dialogue at all levels to ensure that the voices of workers in affected industries, women, low-income and marginalized groups are heard". Etc. 27% of global CO2 emissions are due to electricity generation. They could be cut to almost zero if we only decided to build nuclear power plants. That's an easy, clear and direct technical solution to the technical issue of dangerous levels of CO2 emissions. Otherwise, if what you're concerned with is inequality, why mix that with the issue of emissions and ask for "climate justice"? The concept of a "world carbon budget" is a way to claim that the size of the pie is predetermined and unchangeable and that the only way to ensure others can get a slice of it is to reduce the size of ours. Let's start producing electricity in a clean way and the total size of the pie will grow.
  - _Microft 6y ago
    The "world carbon budget" is calculated by how much additional carbon can be put into the shorter term carbon cycle before blowing the chance of limiting average global warming to a given temperature difference (1.5°C above pre-industrial levels here). This pie actually IS limited.
  - 6y ago
perfunctory 6y ago
So what do we do now? Revolution against the rich? How else do we stop them from destroying the lives of our children?
- Udik 6y ago
  Are you sure you're not classified as rich by that report? Top 1%: >$100k/ year Top 10%: >$35k/ year
  - yoz-y 6y ago
    Not parent but, money-wise I would be but I neither have a car nor fly every month. Taxing frequent flyers is an interesting idea but I wonder how would that work in practice. In current state it's more of an encouraged behaviour. There is also the issue of "the plane would take off anyways". Maybe forcing a decrease in flight frequency would be more helpful.
    - ovi256 6y ago
      >"the plane would take off anyways" That's only true short term, then the offer is adjusted to the demand.
  - perfunctory 6y ago
    I want the government to help me live more sustainably, not to make it difficult. I want it to tax my co2 consumption, not to subsidize it. Well, I might be rich enough to be in the top single digit %, but I am apparently not rich enough to lobby the government. So yeah, if the revolution against the rich means it's against me as well - fine. I'll take part in it.
    - ovi256 6y ago
      >I want the government to help me live more sustainably, not to make it difficult. Why wait for the great father in Washington to do the things you want for you? Just start living more sustainably. >I want it to tax my co2 consumption Estimate the tax and send the check to the Treasury. What's the holdup ?
aussieguy1234 6y ago
A lot of us software engineers would fall into this richest 1%, the article defines this as income above $100,000 per year.
- mcntsh 6y ago
  I see a lot of dialog online, passing the buck of responsibility with climate change to the rich and the "corporations". What people need to accept is that even their average western lifestyle has a hugely negative impact on the earth. We need to stop trying to pin the blame on one group and take responsibility all together.
  - perfunctory 6y ago
    > We need to stop trying to pin the blame on one group and take responsibility all together. Any specific proposals on how to do it?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - _Microft 6y ago
    Problem is that no matter how much good you want to do, you're limited by the amount of emissions you are having right now. No chance to avoid 5t of carbon when your yearly footprint is at 4t already. It's a lot easier to emit an additional 5t of carbon by jetting to the other side of the planet and back again, though. Now think about someone who is taking such trips bi-weekly (as I know someone) and their job isn't even making them at least net-positive for the world either.
    - mcntsh 6y ago
      The average carbon footprint of someone in the US is 16 tons, in Germany it's 9,5 tons.
      - _Microft 6y ago
        It looks like using numbers obscured the argument that I wanted to make. The problem I wanted to point out is that personally achievable reductions are limited while the potential harm that an individual could do by excessive consumption or travel does not have a hard cap.
xupybd 6y ago
Yes but those 1% are also the ones developing greener technology. Yes we could be doing better but the point is you need a solid industrial base to develop the technologies that will allow us to have so many people on the planet without destroying it. It's a hard road ahead but we have a good shot at making it.
- oivey 6y ago
  Almost all of that 1% is not developing greener technology, and it’ll be nearly impossible for tech alone to close the emissions gap between poor and rich. If we want to fix the pollution problem it has to start with the wealthy reducing consumption.
  - xupybd 6y ago
    I agree my point is not that a significant portion of the 1% are developing green technology, it's that a significant portion of those developing green technology are in the 1%. You need to have a certain level of wealth to invest in your time in such things.
- pjc50 6y ago
  Quite a lot of the top 0.01% is oil wealth and reducing CO2 is directly against their interests.
- learnstats2 6y ago
  Disagree. As far as greener technology has been driven by incentives from democratic nations, the 50% have much more influence. Tesla (let's say) is not dependent on the wealth of billionaires: it is dependent on billions from government grants, some of which end up in the billionaires' pockets.
- II2II 6y ago
  Almost all of the people developing greener technologies may be in the 1%, but that does not imply that many in the 1% are developing greener technologies. We also need to consider the target of those technologies, how much greener they are, and how they impact consumption. Say those 1% are developing incrementally better technologies for the 1% that inadvertently increases the environmental impact (e.g. replacement of technologies where the bulk of the impact comes from production rather than use), then there is a strong possibility that the situation is being made even worse.
roenxi 6y ago
The world's richest 1% are people earning more than $100,000. The American median wage is ~$30,000. The flashy headline is basically saying first world living standards are unsustainable.
- esarbe 6y ago
  They are unsustainable given the current resource consumption. There's a lot of room for improvement. We only have to make it worthwhile. It's obviously worthwhile, it's about the survival of civilization after all. But apparently not worthwhile to the markets.
- goatinaboat 6y ago
  The world's richest 1% are people earning more than $100,000 Sorry for the DM link but https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5388245/Pay-bonanza-number-six-figure-salaries-doubled.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5388245/Pay-bonanza... “Number of staff at scandal-hit Oxfam earning more than £100,000 has doubled in seven years”
  - isoprophlex 6y ago
    "You gotta increase inequality to fight inequality!"
  - lippel82 6y ago
    That's a bullshit measure! What number of people make more than an arbitrary threshold value does not say anything. Maybe all these people made $90,000 seven years ago, and $100,000 is just the new $90,000 in 2017. It's a large organization, I'm surprised they had only 11 people above $100,000 in 2017.
  - matthewmacleod 6y ago
    What point do you think you are making with this citation?
    - goatinaboat 6y ago
jsinai 6y ago
Usually when it comes to personal environmental reforms and sustainability preferences on HN (and the tech/research community I associate with), there is always a strong emphasis on air travel. Understandably one round trip across a major ocean is a huge amount of CO2 for one person to emit in a short period of time. However there is an even larger source [1] of carbon emissions that everyone contributes to on a far more frequent basis and that is the fashion industry. If anyone wants to start reducing emissions now, then changing purchasing behaviors for clothing, footwear and accessories is a great place to start. Of course not everyone is into fast fashion, but even those that only buy clothing infrequently can make a difference by a.) only buying clothing/footwear/accessories made from sustainable materials, b.) only buying clothing made locally, or that is already warehoused locally (as shipping emissions would be spread out), c.) extending the lifespan of their clothing buy repairing/altering. In general natural materials do tend to last longer than polyester/viscose, and even organic cotton is more sturdy than non-organic cotton. Finally this behaviour can be extended to other household goods, eg buying bamboo cooking utensils instead of plastic. [1] https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2019/09/23/costo-moda-medio-ambiente https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2019/09/23/costo-m...
- dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
  > c.) extending the lifespan of their clothing buy repairing/altering. This sounds nice but requires another generation before becomes socially acceptable again. More specifically, I know no middle-level manager who would dare to adopt it. (The top and bottom of the ladder could, for different reasons.)
  - pjc50 6y ago
    Invisible mending is totally a thing. Most of the common early failure points of clothes are at seams. The problem is more obsolescence than wear; "fast fashion" encouraging people to buy more new clothes leads to the old ones being disposed of.
  - vanusa 6y ago
    More specifically, I know no middle-level manager who would dare to adopt it. We'll make them adopt it, then. That's what re-education camps are for. Seriously -- this is kind of like saying (in February of 2020) "Telling people to wear masks sounds nice but it just won't fly because it's not socially acceptable. More specifically, I know of no one in my office who would dare to wear a mask in public (except the low-level shitworkers whom none of us hang out with anyways)". When it's a matter of survival -- and yes, curtailing our living standards to head of the worst aspects of climate change clearly is -- there are always ways to make it "socially acceptable". And I'm not referring to coercive means - it's simply a matter of political will, and this thing known as "basic integrity". That's why (in all but the most backward places) nearly everyone (who isn't basically a jerk or an idiot) is willing to wear a mask now (at least in places where it's truly necessary), even though most of us thought it to be awkward and icky (or probably not worth the hassle) the hassle. Because enough people in positions of influence / visibility came through and said "Look, we really need to do this." Oh, and laws ("coercion") also help too. But the main thing that moves the needle is -- people (in positions of influence) having the cuts to act with integrity, and simply be open and honest about what needs to be done. And of course to back that up by leading by example.
aaron695 6y ago
This is trick mathematics. Fun for a game. Not so for politics. Basically the true poor don't have any CO2 emissions. So pick any other group they are much bigger. The rich countries who live longer, are happier and more content are responsible for most of the CO2 pollution at the moment. It is arguable however how much of the CO2 the true poor should be accountable for. To create vaccines and medical procedures and all our knowledge takes phenomenal amounts of CO2. Developing countries medical sucks compared to the west but it's futuristic compared to 50 years ago. This is what our CO2 emissions bought us - https://mobile.twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/1306699978002268161 https://mobile.twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/1306699978002268...
- esarbe 6y ago
  This is bullshit. You don't buy progress with CO2. You buy progress with investments in humans. The only reason to not go carbon neutral right away is that it would hurt the capital class (of which I'm a member).
evilsetg 6y ago
I think it is a worthwhile thought to be had that if you earn more than 99% of the people on this planet and spend that money you take an overproportional part of the global climate pie. While such individuals may feel or be entitled to their overproportional wealth the question is why this wealth itself gives them the right to overconsume on our climate. I can see no moral reason that ones monetary capability to damage the climate more than others should give the right to do so. It is time to price in the damage that is done by consumption and emission of greenhouse gases. This won't recover the wealth (in form of consumtion rights on the climate) that was stolen by the rich from the poor, but will at least restrict such from happening in the future. It is true that critisizing the individual consumption of the wealthy will not change anything. We need regulations. However I think particulary the 1% have responsibility to lobby for this as they have the greatest amount of power as well as the greatest responsibility in terms of damage done to our world per person.
- perfunctory 6y ago
  > We need regulations. However I think particulary the 1% have responsibility to lobby Any ideas how we force these regulations? The 1% is NOT lobbying for change at the moment. How do we make them?
LatteLazy 6y ago
We have decided as a species not to solve climate change. Why pretend otherwise?
- pas 6y ago
  Nah, we'll do Herculean efforts much later, because coordinating all the stakeholders fails when the stakes are too low. :(
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    "later" was 2010. 2020 is "too late". And the appetite for any effort at all (let alone the herculean sort) has gone down not up...
    - pas 6y ago
      Agreed. Yet that's likely what will happen. Similarly to the hype cycle. There's a trough between the peak and the stable region. Global coordination efforts reached a peak around 2016 (paris climate talks). The science is fairly settled, the models are just being fine-tuned, and any excitement for change is largely gone. What's left is slow buildup of problems, dread and finally maybe some momentum.

81 points by ciconia 6y ago

That's 15% and 7% of the CO2 emissions; where is the other 73%? This is pointing blame at the individuals, but individuals can't make a statistically significant impact on the numbers; that's down to governments and legislations. Corporations won't regulate themselves wrt emissions if there's no incentive or legislation for it, not unless they can actually earn money from it. And I know some just sell off their CO2 emissions rights.

KingOfCoders 6y ago
[Edit] If you're right with the 73% ... The middle 73% is with the middle, aka target of the article - don't anger the people who pay your bills.
- ctrl-j 6y ago
  I find it hard to believe that the "middle" 49% produce 73% of the emissions, while the top 1% only produce 15% While I think it's still best for us all to reduce where we can - I also agree that the individual would quickly change their habits if corporations started to charge a sustainable price for their goods instead of leveraging the planets future.
  - KingOfCoders 6y ago
    Well, with that numbers the top 1% produces 15x their share of emissions, the 49% produce 1.5x their share of emissions. So the top 1% produce 10x more emissions compared to the middle. Doesn't sound suspicious to me, does it to you?

_Microft 6y ago

Direct link to the english report, PDF, 12 pages, 610kB: https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/621052/mb-confronting-carbon-inequality-210920-en.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10... Here is the Oxfam press release: https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-richest-1-percent-more-double-emissions-poorest-half-humanity https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-ric... Here is the report in other languages (english, spanish, french): https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/handle/10546/621052 https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/handle/10546/621052

Udik 6y ago
It's telling that the actions proposed by the report are a laundry list of socialist reforms (I mean socialist in a neutral, technical way: no judgement implied). Examples: "wealth taxes", "public investment, including to create decent job guarantees, alongside working-time reductions", "banning advertising in public spaces", "developing a wider set of gender-transformative indicators of economic progress", "social dialogue at all levels to ensure that the voices of workers in affected industries, women, low-income and marginalized groups are heard". Etc. 27% of global CO2 emissions are due to electricity generation. They could be cut to almost zero if we only decided to build nuclear power plants. That's an easy, clear and direct technical solution to the technical issue of dangerous levels of CO2 emissions. Otherwise, if what you're concerned with is inequality, why mix that with the issue of emissions and ask for "climate justice"? The concept of a "world carbon budget" is a way to claim that the size of the pie is predetermined and unchangeable and that the only way to ensure others can get a slice of it is to reduce the size of ours. Let's start producing electricity in a clean way and the total size of the pie will grow.
- _Microft 6y ago
  The "world carbon budget" is calculated by how much additional carbon can be put into the shorter term carbon cycle before blowing the chance of limiting average global warming to a given temperature difference (1.5°C above pre-industrial levels here). This pie actually IS limited.
- 6y ago

perfunctory 6y ago

So what do we do now? Revolution against the rich? How else do we stop them from destroying the lives of our children?

Udik 6y ago
Are you sure you're not classified as rich by that report? Top 1%: >$100k/ year Top 10%: >$35k/ year
- yoz-y 6y ago
  Not parent but, money-wise I would be but I neither have a car nor fly every month. Taxing frequent flyers is an interesting idea but I wonder how would that work in practice. In current state it's more of an encouraged behaviour. There is also the issue of "the plane would take off anyways". Maybe forcing a decrease in flight frequency would be more helpful.
  - ovi256 6y ago
    >"the plane would take off anyways" That's only true short term, then the offer is adjusted to the demand.
- perfunctory 6y ago
  I want the government to help me live more sustainably, not to make it difficult. I want it to tax my co2 consumption, not to subsidize it. Well, I might be rich enough to be in the top single digit %, but I am apparently not rich enough to lobby the government. So yeah, if the revolution against the rich means it's against me as well - fine. I'll take part in it.
  - ovi256 6y ago
    >I want the government to help me live more sustainably, not to make it difficult. Why wait for the great father in Washington to do the things you want for you? Just start living more sustainably. >I want it to tax my co2 consumption Estimate the tax and send the check to the Treasury. What's the holdup ?

aussieguy1234 6y ago

A lot of us software engineers would fall into this richest 1%, the article defines this as income above $100,000 per year.

mcntsh 6y ago
I see a lot of dialog online, passing the buck of responsibility with climate change to the rich and the "corporations". What people need to accept is that even their average western lifestyle has a hugely negative impact on the earth. We need to stop trying to pin the blame on one group and take responsibility all together.
- perfunctory 6y ago
  > We need to stop trying to pin the blame on one group and take responsibility all together. Any specific proposals on how to do it?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- _Microft 6y ago
  Problem is that no matter how much good you want to do, you're limited by the amount of emissions you are having right now. No chance to avoid 5t of carbon when your yearly footprint is at 4t already. It's a lot easier to emit an additional 5t of carbon by jetting to the other side of the planet and back again, though. Now think about someone who is taking such trips bi-weekly (as I know someone) and their job isn't even making them at least net-positive for the world either.
  - mcntsh 6y ago
    The average carbon footprint of someone in the US is 16 tons, in Germany it's 9,5 tons.
    - _Microft 6y ago
      It looks like using numbers obscured the argument that I wanted to make. The problem I wanted to point out is that personally achievable reductions are limited while the potential harm that an individual could do by excessive consumption or travel does not have a hard cap.

xupybd 6y ago

Yes but those 1% are also the ones developing greener technology. Yes we could be doing better but the point is you need a solid industrial base to develop the technologies that will allow us to have so many people on the planet without destroying it. It's a hard road ahead but we have a good shot at making it.

oivey 6y ago
Almost all of that 1% is not developing greener technology, and it’ll be nearly impossible for tech alone to close the emissions gap between poor and rich. If we want to fix the pollution problem it has to start with the wealthy reducing consumption.
- xupybd 6y ago
  I agree my point is not that a significant portion of the 1% are developing green technology, it's that a significant portion of those developing green technology are in the 1%. You need to have a certain level of wealth to invest in your time in such things.
pjc50 6y ago
Quite a lot of the top 0.01% is oil wealth and reducing CO2 is directly against their interests.
learnstats2 6y ago
Disagree. As far as greener technology has been driven by incentives from democratic nations, the 50% have much more influence. Tesla (let's say) is not dependent on the wealth of billionaires: it is dependent on billions from government grants, some of which end up in the billionaires' pockets.
II2II 6y ago
Almost all of the people developing greener technologies may be in the 1%, but that does not imply that many in the 1% are developing greener technologies. We also need to consider the target of those technologies, how much greener they are, and how they impact consumption. Say those 1% are developing incrementally better technologies for the 1% that inadvertently increases the environmental impact (e.g. replacement of technologies where the bulk of the impact comes from production rather than use), then there is a strong possibility that the situation is being made even worse.

roenxi 6y ago

The world's richest 1% are people earning more than $100,000. The American median wage is ~$30,000. The flashy headline is basically saying first world living standards are unsustainable.

esarbe 6y ago
They are unsustainable given the current resource consumption. There's a lot of room for improvement. We only have to make it worthwhile. It's obviously worthwhile, it's about the survival of civilization after all. But apparently not worthwhile to the markets.
goatinaboat 6y ago
The world's richest 1% are people earning more than $100,000 Sorry for the DM link but https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5388245/Pay-bonanza-number-six-figure-salaries-doubled.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5388245/Pay-bonanza... “Number of staff at scandal-hit Oxfam earning more than £100,000 has doubled in seven years”
- isoprophlex 6y ago
  "You gotta increase inequality to fight inequality!"
- lippel82 6y ago
  That's a bullshit measure! What number of people make more than an arbitrary threshold value does not say anything. Maybe all these people made $90,000 seven years ago, and $100,000 is just the new $90,000 in 2017. It's a large organization, I'm surprised they had only 11 people above $100,000 in 2017.
- matthewmacleod 6y ago
  What point do you think you are making with this citation?
  - goatinaboat 6y ago

jsinai 6y ago

Usually when it comes to personal environmental reforms and sustainability preferences on HN (and the tech/research community I associate with), there is always a strong emphasis on air travel. Understandably one round trip across a major ocean is a huge amount of CO2 for one person to emit in a short period of time. However there is an even larger source [1] of carbon emissions that everyone contributes to on a far more frequent basis and that is the fashion industry. If anyone wants to start reducing emissions now, then changing purchasing behaviors for clothing, footwear and accessories is a great place to start. Of course not everyone is into fast fashion, but even those that only buy clothing infrequently can make a difference by a.) only buying clothing/footwear/accessories made from sustainable materials, b.) only buying clothing made locally, or that is already warehoused locally (as shipping emissions would be spread out), c.) extending the lifespan of their clothing buy repairing/altering. In general natural materials do tend to last longer than polyester/viscose, and even organic cotton is more sturdy than non-organic cotton. Finally this behaviour can be extended to other household goods, eg buying bamboo cooking utensils instead of plastic. [1] https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2019/09/23/costo-moda-medio-ambiente https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2019/09/23/costo-m...

dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
> c.) extending the lifespan of their clothing buy repairing/altering. This sounds nice but requires another generation before becomes socially acceptable again. More specifically, I know no middle-level manager who would dare to adopt it. (The top and bottom of the ladder could, for different reasons.)
- pjc50 6y ago
  Invisible mending is totally a thing. Most of the common early failure points of clothes are at seams. The problem is more obsolescence than wear; "fast fashion" encouraging people to buy more new clothes leads to the old ones being disposed of.
- vanusa 6y ago
  More specifically, I know no middle-level manager who would dare to adopt it. We'll make them adopt it, then. That's what re-education camps are for. Seriously -- this is kind of like saying (in February of 2020) "Telling people to wear masks sounds nice but it just won't fly because it's not socially acceptable. More specifically, I know of no one in my office who would dare to wear a mask in public (except the low-level shitworkers whom none of us hang out with anyways)". When it's a matter of survival -- and yes, curtailing our living standards to head of the worst aspects of climate change clearly is -- there are always ways to make it "socially acceptable". And I'm not referring to coercive means - it's simply a matter of political will, and this thing known as "basic integrity". That's why (in all but the most backward places) nearly everyone (who isn't basically a jerk or an idiot) is willing to wear a mask now (at least in places where it's truly necessary), even though most of us thought it to be awkward and icky (or probably not worth the hassle) the hassle. Because enough people in positions of influence / visibility came through and said "Look, we really need to do this." Oh, and laws ("coercion") also help too. But the main thing that moves the needle is -- people (in positions of influence) having the cuts to act with integrity, and simply be open and honest about what needs to be done. And of course to back that up by leading by example.

aaron695 6y ago

This is trick mathematics. Fun for a game. Not so for politics. Basically the true poor don't have any CO2 emissions. So pick any other group they are much bigger. The rich countries who live longer, are happier and more content are responsible for most of the CO2 pollution at the moment. It is arguable however how much of the CO2 the true poor should be accountable for. To create vaccines and medical procedures and all our knowledge takes phenomenal amounts of CO2. Developing countries medical sucks compared to the west but it's futuristic compared to 50 years ago. This is what our CO2 emissions bought us - https://mobile.twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/1306699978002268161 https://mobile.twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/1306699978002268...

esarbe 6y ago
This is bullshit. You don't buy progress with CO2. You buy progress with investments in humans. The only reason to not go carbon neutral right away is that it would hurt the capital class (of which I'm a member).

evilsetg 6y ago

I think it is a worthwhile thought to be had that if you earn more than 99% of the people on this planet and spend that money you take an overproportional part of the global climate pie. While such individuals may feel or be entitled to their overproportional wealth the question is why this wealth itself gives them the right to overconsume on our climate. I can see no moral reason that ones monetary capability to damage the climate more than others should give the right to do so. It is time to price in the damage that is done by consumption and emission of greenhouse gases. This won't recover the wealth (in form of consumtion rights on the climate) that was stolen by the rich from the poor, but will at least restrict such from happening in the future. It is true that critisizing the individual consumption of the wealthy will not change anything. We need regulations. However I think particulary the 1% have responsibility to lobby for this as they have the greatest amount of power as well as the greatest responsibility in terms of damage done to our world per person.

perfunctory 6y ago
> We need regulations. However I think particulary the 1% have responsibility to lobby Any ideas how we force these regulations? The 1% is NOT lobbying for change at the moment. How do we make them?

LatteLazy 6y ago

We have decided as a species not to solve climate change. Why pretend otherwise?

pas 6y ago
Nah, we'll do Herculean efforts much later, because coordinating all the stakeholders fails when the stakes are too low. :(
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  "later" was 2010. 2020 is "too late". And the appetite for any effort at all (let alone the herculean sort) has gone down not up...
  - pas 6y ago
    Agreed. Yet that's likely what will happen. Similarly to the hype cycle. There's a trough between the peak and the stable region. Global coordination efforts reached a peak around 2016 (paris climate talks). The science is fairly settled, the models are just being fine-tuned, and any excitement for change is largely gone. What's left is slow buildup of problems, dread and finally maybe some momentum.