4 ms·

> 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 th

> 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
  > 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!) On an individual level, you're right, but it doesn't hold up in aggregate. The data I can find said that globally private jets emitted 33.7 million tons of CO2 in 2016 (I can't find more up to date/better numbers, but would love to see them if you find them). That's definitely a problem, but at the same time, private jets are ~4% of total aviation greenhouse gases, and it's ~2% of what the US alone emits to create electricity. Switching 2% of our dirty electricity to renewables would give us the same benefit as trying to launch a global campaign to eliminate private jets. I have a lot more faith that we could actually switch 2% of the grid to renewables than I do in reaching a global consensus to ban private jets. > 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 they are, in relative terms. That is to say, we all agree that global warming is an issue, we're just not willing to take a decrease in lifestyle to do it. They're not as willing in absolute terms, because something like banning private jets really only impacts the wealthy. > 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? It depends on your goal. If the goal is to hit the Paris Accord goals, trimming your personal emissions is probably the better option. You can definitely trim your own emissions; whether your campaigning will do anything is only a chance. If everyone makes the same choice and campaigns to regulate the ultra-wealthy, we don't hit those climate targets. They emit a lot, but not enough to hit the climate goals. If your goal is to hit the climate targets _fairly_, then campaigning is probably the better option. The rich have a lot more to give on that front, and can give a lot before we're at the point where everyone has to start giving up quality of life.

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
> 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!) On an individual level, you're right, but it doesn't hold up in aggregate. The data I can find said that globally private jets emitted 33.7 million tons of CO2 in 2016 (I can't find more up to date/better numbers, but would love to see them if you find them). That's definitely a problem, but at the same time, private jets are ~4% of total aviation greenhouse gases, and it's ~2% of what the US alone emits to create electricity. Switching 2% of our dirty electricity to renewables would give us the same benefit as trying to launch a global campaign to eliminate private jets. I have a lot more faith that we could actually switch 2% of the grid to renewables than I do in reaching a global consensus to ban private jets. > 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 they are, in relative terms. That is to say, we all agree that global warming is an issue, we're just not willing to take a decrease in lifestyle to do it. They're not as willing in absolute terms, because something like banning private jets really only impacts the wealthy. > 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? It depends on your goal. If the goal is to hit the Paris Accord goals, trimming your personal emissions is probably the better option. You can definitely trim your own emissions; whether your campaigning will do anything is only a chance. If everyone makes the same choice and campaigns to regulate the ultra-wealthy, we don't hit those climate targets. They emit a lot, but not enough to hit the climate goals. If your goal is to hit the climate targets _fairly_, then campaigning is probably the better option. The rich have a lot more to give on that front, and can give a lot before we're at the point where everyone has to start giving up quality of life.