3 ms·
Of course individually they consume less, when talking about the mass and big numbers, ultra wealthy are a statistical anomaly.
by Dma54rhs 5y ago
Of course individually they consume less, when talking about the mass and big numbers, ultra wealthy are a statistical anomaly.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 5y agoMost of the poor energy footprint is not optional: commuting (most can't live in expensive districts), heating a single small apartment, basic food, buy a few leisure things. Almost all the wealthy footprint is discretionary: air travel, luxury purchase, package holidays... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-020-0579-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-020-0579-8 Your "statistical anomaly" is not anecdotal, it's the very symbol of a broken system that was designed not to care. In this situation, I cannot expect the non-wealthy to make big efforts to reduce their consumption while the ultra rich continues to casually destroy the environment. We're letting the rich take almost all the profit but we ask the poor to work harder only because they're more numerous. This can only end with violence or a catastrophe, IMHO.
- Dma54rhs 5y agoRight, but then what are options? Everything hits the poor I agree but if you don't want to then we will just let the global warming to run rampant and watch?
- elevaet 5y agoUltra wealthy aside, this is about comparing the world's wealthiest economies to the world's poorest. There's a 10:1 ratio of energy usage in USA vs India for example (per capita).