4 ms·

I'm kinda surprised to see this in Bloomberg. :) > If the U.S. just counted the emissions of the bottom half of its earners, it would already be on track to li

I'm kinda surprised to see this in Bloomberg. :) > If the U.S. just counted the emissions of the bottom half of its earners, it would already be on track to limit global temperature rise to 1.5C, the stretch goal of the Paris accord. On a national level, though, with the inclusion of wealthy Americans, the U.S. is falling far short. The same goes for France, India and China. I read this out to my sister to get a non-techie's first take and this was her response: "That makes sense. So all we have to do is kill the rich." She meant it metaphorically. I think. I'm not going to ask. I'm not an "eat the rich" radical, nor is my sister, but that was my first response as well: "Oh ho! So it's the richies who have to change their lifestyles, eh!? I can eat a hamburger a couple of times a week after all if the 1% gives up their mega-yachts and private jets, eh?"

everforward 4y ago
It's worth pointing out that their problem group includes a lot of ordinary people who probably don't realize they're in that group. The median annual income in the US is $41,535; anyone making more than that is in the problematic 50% of people. The bottom 50% is also exactly at the limit, so the likely implication is that people close to 50% are over the limit and people closer to 1% are below it. It does make me curious where the breaking point is, where people are individually at their emission limit instead of averaging to it. The middle 40% is at 2.2x what they should be emitting; I don't have exact numbers for that group, but the middle 60% (from the quintiles) is $24k - $120k. The middle 40% is probably something like $30k-$100k. That seems to support the idea that even people a little below the median are emitting more than they should. We're still looking at normal people needing to make changes. People talk about how poorly teachers are paid, but the national average salary is $63k, which is enough to be on the "emitting too much" side.
- carapace 4y ago
  First, let's be clear that it's not the people who are problematic, it's their (our) behavior. That said, it seems counter-productive to concentrate on the 49% vs. the 51% when the problem is mostly concentrated at the top. You're right that "we're still looking at normal people needing to make changes", but the low-hanging fruit is in the orchards of the ultra-wealthy. As far as I'm concerned they don't have to stop being rich, they just have to stop poisoning the Earth, eh? In light of the information in the article the obvious thing to do is curtail the emissions of the wealthy first to buy us time to enact more comprehensive mitigations.
  - everforward 4y ago
    > First, let's be clear that it's not the people who are problematic, it's their (our) behavior. That's a good point, I phrased that poorly. > In light of the information in the article the obvious thing to do is curtail the emissions of the wealthy first to buy us time to enact more comprehensive mitigations. My understanding is that these targets are already meant to buy us enough time to get to net-zero emissions. I.e. that we're already at the point where we need comprehensive mitigations, and the time to buy more time was a decade ago. > but the low-hanging fruit is in the orchards of the ultra-wealthy. I think the truth of that statement depends on the angle you view it from. They have the most impactful per-capita changes to make for sure. I think enforcing those rules on them will also be the most difficult. They have the money and ability to re-flag ships, or to buy fuel from countries with lower regulations, or etc. I think it will take a global framework to enforce those rules on the ultra-wealthy, which takes a long time. If we wait for that to happen to start enforcing the rules on everyone, we're definitely not going to hit our Paris Accord numbers on time.
    - carapace 4y ago
      > > First, let's be clear that it's not the people who are problematic, it's their (our) behavior. > That's a good point, I phrased that poorly. Cheers! :) > > In light of the information in the article the obvious thing to do is curtail the emissions of the wealthy first to buy us time to enact more comprehensive mitigations. > My understanding is that these targets are already meant to buy us enough time to get to net-zero emissions. I.e. that we're already at the point where we need comprehensive mitigations, and the time to buy more time was a decade ago. That's true, and I don't actually think this finding lets anyone off the hook: we're all in this together. > [the ultra-wealthy] have the most impactful per-capita changes to make for sure. Exactly, and by a huge margin. Take me for instance: I'm a US citizen, so I'm in the top bracket globally for consumption and emissions (at any income level) but I don't drive a car and I have no children, I eat meat but it's locally and sustainably raised (e.g. not $1/lb rainforest-killing beef.) Realistically, there's just not that much more I can do to really make a dent in emissions. (There's more I can do of course: grow my own food, install solar panels, etc. but those are marginal at best compared with, say, one person retiring their private jet and flying first class instead, not even foregoing all air travel!) > I think enforcing those rules on them will also be the most difficult. They have the money and ability to re-flag ships, or to buy fuel from countries with lower regulations, or etc. Well, I think that's why this article appearing in Bloomberg is notable: the wealthy live on the planet too, eh? It's their enviroment, eh? They can't all share New Zealand? I would hope they are as concerned and motivated to change as anyone else. > I think it will take a global framework to enforce those rules on the ultra-wealthy, which takes a long time. If we wait for that to happen to start enforcing the rules on everyone, we're definitely not going to hit our Paris Accord numbers on time. Sure but the question is what to do about that? I can spend my time trimming a few more units of personal emissions, or I can spend time campaigning to limit the emissions of the ultra-wealthy. It seems like the latter would be more promising, no?

everforward 4y ago

It's worth pointing out that their problem group includes a lot of ordinary people who probably don't realize they're in that group. The median annual income in the US is $41,535; anyone making more than that is in the problematic 50% of people. The bottom 50% is also exactly at the limit, so the likely implication is that people close to 50% are over the limit and people closer to 1% are below it. It does make me curious where the breaking point is, where people are individually at their emission limit instead of averaging to it. The middle 40% is at 2.2x what they should be emitting; I don't have exact numbers for that group, but the middle 60% (from the quintiles) is $24k - $120k. The middle 40% is probably something like $30k-$100k. That seems to support the idea that even people a little below the median are emitting more than they should. We're still looking at normal people needing to make changes. People talk about how poorly teachers are paid, but the national average salary is $63k, which is enough to be on the "emitting too much" side.

carapace 4y ago
First, let's be clear that it's not the people who are problematic, it's their (our) behavior. That said, it seems counter-productive to concentrate on the 49% vs. the 51% when the problem is mostly concentrated at the top. You're right that "we're still looking at normal people needing to make changes", but the low-hanging fruit is in the orchards of the ultra-wealthy. As far as I'm concerned they don't have to stop being rich, they just have to stop poisoning the Earth, eh? In light of the information in the article the obvious thing to do is curtail the emissions of the wealthy first to buy us time to enact more comprehensive mitigations.
- everforward 4y ago
  > First, let's be clear that it's not the people who are problematic, it's their (our) behavior. That's a good point, I phrased that poorly. > In light of the information in the article the obvious thing to do is curtail the emissions of the wealthy first to buy us time to enact more comprehensive mitigations. My understanding is that these targets are already meant to buy us enough time to get to net-zero emissions. I.e. that we're already at the point where we need comprehensive mitigations, and the time to buy more time was a decade ago. > but the low-hanging fruit is in the orchards of the ultra-wealthy. I think the truth of that statement depends on the angle you view it from. They have the most impactful per-capita changes to make for sure. I think enforcing those rules on them will also be the most difficult. They have the money and ability to re-flag ships, or to buy fuel from countries with lower regulations, or etc. I think it will take a global framework to enforce those rules on the ultra-wealthy, which takes a long time. If we wait for that to happen to start enforcing the rules on everyone, we're definitely not going to hit our Paris Accord numbers on time.
  - carapace 4y ago
    > > First, let's be clear that it's not the people who are problematic, it's their (our) behavior. > That's a good point, I phrased that poorly. Cheers! :) > > In light of the information in the article the obvious thing to do is curtail the emissions of the wealthy first to buy us time to enact more comprehensive mitigations. > My understanding is that these targets are already meant to buy us enough time to get to net-zero emissions. I.e. that we're already at the point where we need comprehensive mitigations, and the time to buy more time was a decade ago. That's true, and I don't actually think this finding lets anyone off the hook: we're all in this together. > [the ultra-wealthy] have the most impactful per-capita changes to make for sure. Exactly, and by a huge margin. Take me for instance: I'm a US citizen, so I'm in the top bracket globally for consumption and emissions (at any income level) but I don't drive a car and I have no children, I eat meat but it's locally and sustainably raised (e.g. not $1/lb rainforest-killing beef.) Realistically, there's just not that much more I can do to really make a dent in emissions. (There's more I can do of course: grow my own food, install solar panels, etc. but those are marginal at best compared with, say, one person retiring their private jet and flying first class instead, not even foregoing all air travel!) > I think enforcing those rules on them will also be the most difficult. They have the money and ability to re-flag ships, or to buy fuel from countries with lower regulations, or etc. Well, I think that's why this article appearing in Bloomberg is notable: the wealthy live on the planet too, eh? It's their enviroment, eh? They can't all share New Zealand? I would hope they are as concerned and motivated to change as anyone else. > I think it will take a global framework to enforce those rules on the ultra-wealthy, which takes a long time. If we wait for that to happen to start enforcing the rules on everyone, we're definitely not going to hit our Paris Accord numbers on time. Sure but the question is what to do about that? I can spend my time trimming a few more units of personal emissions, or I can spend time campaigning to limit the emissions of the ultra-wealthy. It seems like the latter would be more promising, no?