5 ms·

“The richest 10% of people are responsible for 52% of cumulative global emissions — and the 1% for a full 15%.” "Of course, many Americans are wealthy in globa

“The richest 10% of people are responsible for 52% of cumulative global emissions — and the 1% for a full 15%.” "Of course, many Americans are wealthy in global terms. Oxfam has defined the world’s 1% as the 60 million people earning over $109,000 a year. They defined the 10% as the 770 million people earning over $38,000." The vast majority of those reading and posting on HN are in the highest global wealth bracket(s). Myself included. This article isn't about billionaires and sports icons. It is about what Americans (and many Westerns Europeans) consider middle class.

Swizec 4y ago
Heck, HN constantly gives rise to bickering about how $109k is a very low salary to make. The fact that puts you in the global 1% blows my mind edit to clarify: This is not a value judgement on money. Just saying it blows my mind – the human brain (at least mine) wasn’t made for the power law
- ideamotor 4y ago
  It’s the very effective and ubiquitous psychological trick of seeing yourself as being in a relatively compromised situation in order to justify acquiring ever more comparative advantage. I find it far less appalling to actually recognize how good you have it, continue to seek further wealth, but seek wealth in industries that are net benefits to society.
  - o_1 4y ago
    id wager the 0.1% of the world or the .5% of America are the worst offenders. Policy only affects the poor.
    - ideamotor 4y ago
      What is your point? That middle class Americans don’t have it easy and also contribute plenty to global emissions? Both are true, not only in a global context but in a historical one. I just don’t see why we can’t acknowledge that and frankly be grateful.
- mechanical_bear 4y ago
  It is though…relative to the expenses necessary to live in certain areas.
- nickdothutton 4y ago
  This is why it’s always important to consider purchasing power parity.
- OrvalWintermute 4y ago
  $109k in Manhattan, or Silicon Valley is pretty poor.
  - haswell 4y ago
    This further highlights the reality of lower income brackets relative to that.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    If you make that in Manhattan, you are probably young, or live in Queens/South Brooklyn/Jersey City and you’re doing fine. You get pinched if you make just enough to live in Manhattan or trendy nearby neighborhoods, and your career requires it, but not enough to save and prepare for retirement.
  - wyre 4y ago
    Looks like median income in Silicon Valley is $126k [1] and median household income in Manhattan is $93k. I wouldn’t call $109k “pretty poor” in either local. [1] https://siliconvalleyindicators.org/data/economy/income/personal-income/per-capita-income/ https://siliconvalleyindicators.org/data/economy/income/pers... [2] https://www.city-data.com/income/income-Manhattan-New-York.html https://www.city-data.com/income/income-Manhattan-New-York.h...
throwaway09092 4y ago
jmoak3 4y ago
America is freaky rich - how many people in this forum grow food of any kind (outside of a hobby) for example? I'm not too surprised on the % of share of the footprint, people making (or spending) at least $40k drive a lot of worldwide consumption (and shipping). I'd wager a lot of the carbon emissions of the $100k and above group come from flights. Travel among that income level has become extremely popular in the past 50 years. For example, I used to live in California, and it was surprising when I did the napkin math to find the emissions generated to visit family near the Appalachians (just for my seat on the plane). I calculated that a given person's portion of a round trip cross-American flight generated as much kg C02 as a typical American generates by consuming a year's worth of meat. My two round-trip flights a year were undo-ing the climate savings of two typical American vegetarians. Given ~400 passengers on a 747, each plane that darts across the whole of America undos 200 Americans who gave up meat for a year. The FAA claims to process 16mil flights a year of various lengths. EDIT: some phrases EDIT2: more EDIT3: even more content
- avgcorrection 4y ago
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  If it’s any consolation, no US domestic carrier operates the 747 or A380 today, and their 2-engine cousins are much less thirsty.
- multjoy 4y ago
  How was it surprising? The carbon footprint of flying has been known for decades.
  - jmoak3 4y ago
    I suppose I was sheltered until several years ago.
- eastbound 4y ago
  Jancovici famously made the calculation in public in 2003: If you divide permissible emissions (3Gtec/yr) by Earth population, each human can EITHER: - Use one Paris-NYC flight per year, - OR eat meat, - OR heat their home, - OR drive to work. Choose one. All EU calculations about emissions are based on this target, but it’s too early to tell people. It’s based on: Earth absorbs 3 gigatons-equivalent-carbon by night, so we can emit as much. And that’s what humanity emitted in 1990, so it’s achievable. Since then, we’ve double or trippled. For myself, I consider that the only flaw in this reasoning is that dividing the global permissible emissions by population “is communism”, because it assumes that every human should be given the same pay. I consider it’s normal that some earn much more. That’s the only flaw, and that’s because I’m a capitalist, but it’s great to have the ballpark figure of what would be FAIR to consume for everyone. (I also have doubts about scientists’ reliability when topics are heavily politicized, but that’s my affair, at least I’m repeating their conclusions as-is, so you can judge).
ryukafalz 4y ago
Yes, many of us on this forum are extraordinarily wealthy by global standards, myself included. I think that gives us some responsibility to reduce our impact on the planet where we’re able. I don’t think we can justify asking those who are already struggling to do more individually, but in this highest income bracket I think we certainly can.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
eastbound 4y ago
Only because India and Africa skew the average by having extremely large population. Given a certain amount of wealth, they chose to divide it between more kids, of course each will have to consume less. Western countries chose low-density, i.e. have few kids per family, which means each can afford more. It was our sacrifice. Fewer kids. Smaller extended families, even for Christmas. Less human happiness. Everything bet on each kid. But at least each of them can afford housing, and our girls can leave home without having to find a husband, if ever. China, on the other hand, deserves a much larger share of emissions, since, despite being overpopulated, they sacrificed themselves to be able to control overpopulation, and they work like crazy. Summary: Divide carbon emissions by country, not by headcount, because if you calculate by headcount, you give incentive to reproduce like rabbits, which is causing global warming.
- rat9988 4y ago
  Summary: Divide carbon emissions by country, not by headcount. This is what happens when you read statistics wrong coupled with some preexisting bias that show in your choice of words.
- shagie 4y ago
  Regarding China, I would suggest reading https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57018837 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57018837 (2019) and consider that it hasn't exactly shown itself to be responsible with development. And while 2021 and 2022 are seeing a drop ( https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-see-longest-sustained-drop-in-a-decade/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-se... ) there is every indication that it will pick right back up and accelerate. > Even as China’s coal demand is falling, the output from domestic coal mines is increasing rapidly. This resulted in a major overall drop in coal imports in the first quarter of the year, as reported by China Customs, and allowed coal plants and other operators to fill up stockpiles that were depleted during last year’s coal shortage. > Investment in new coal- and gas-fired power capacity is also continuing at a high level. In the first four months of the year, at least 18 thermal power projects started construction, with a total capacity of 12.8 gigawatts (GW). Another 19 projects with a total capacity of 13.0GW were approved for construction.
kcplate 4y ago
Funny how this stating facts as the (blank) contributes (blank)% of (blank). Can be either political correct or not depending what the (blank)s are.

Swizec 4y ago

Heck, HN constantly gives rise to bickering about how $109k is a very low salary to make. The fact that puts you in the global 1% blows my mind edit to clarify: This is not a value judgement on money. Just saying it blows my mind – the human brain (at least mine) wasn’t made for the power law

ideamotor 4y ago
It’s the very effective and ubiquitous psychological trick of seeing yourself as being in a relatively compromised situation in order to justify acquiring ever more comparative advantage. I find it far less appalling to actually recognize how good you have it, continue to seek further wealth, but seek wealth in industries that are net benefits to society.
- o_1 4y ago
  id wager the 0.1% of the world or the .5% of America are the worst offenders. Policy only affects the poor.
  - ideamotor 4y ago
    What is your point? That middle class Americans don’t have it easy and also contribute plenty to global emissions? Both are true, not only in a global context but in a historical one. I just don’t see why we can’t acknowledge that and frankly be grateful.
mechanical_bear 4y ago
It is though…relative to the expenses necessary to live in certain areas.
nickdothutton 4y ago
This is why it’s always important to consider purchasing power parity.
OrvalWintermute 4y ago
$109k in Manhattan, or Silicon Valley is pretty poor.
- haswell 4y ago
  This further highlights the reality of lower income brackets relative to that.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  If you make that in Manhattan, you are probably young, or live in Queens/South Brooklyn/Jersey City and you’re doing fine. You get pinched if you make just enough to live in Manhattan or trendy nearby neighborhoods, and your career requires it, but not enough to save and prepare for retirement.
- wyre 4y ago
  Looks like median income in Silicon Valley is $126k [1] and median household income in Manhattan is $93k. I wouldn’t call $109k “pretty poor” in either local. [1] https://siliconvalleyindicators.org/data/economy/income/personal-income/per-capita-income/ https://siliconvalleyindicators.org/data/economy/income/pers... [2] https://www.city-data.com/income/income-Manhattan-New-York.html https://www.city-data.com/income/income-Manhattan-New-York.h...

throwaway09092 4y ago

jmoak3 4y ago

America is freaky rich - how many people in this forum grow food of any kind (outside of a hobby) for example? I'm not too surprised on the % of share of the footprint, people making (or spending) at least $40k drive a lot of worldwide consumption (and shipping). I'd wager a lot of the carbon emissions of the $100k and above group come from flights. Travel among that income level has become extremely popular in the past 50 years. For example, I used to live in California, and it was surprising when I did the napkin math to find the emissions generated to visit family near the Appalachians (just for my seat on the plane). I calculated that a given person's portion of a round trip cross-American flight generated as much kg C02 as a typical American generates by consuming a year's worth of meat. My two round-trip flights a year were undo-ing the climate savings of two typical American vegetarians. Given ~400 passengers on a 747, each plane that darts across the whole of America undos 200 Americans who gave up meat for a year. The FAA claims to process 16mil flights a year of various lengths. EDIT: some phrases EDIT2: more EDIT3: even more content

avgcorrection 4y ago
bobthepanda 4y ago
If it’s any consolation, no US domestic carrier operates the 747 or A380 today, and their 2-engine cousins are much less thirsty.
multjoy 4y ago
How was it surprising? The carbon footprint of flying has been known for decades.
- jmoak3 4y ago
  I suppose I was sheltered until several years ago.
eastbound 4y ago
Jancovici famously made the calculation in public in 2003: If you divide permissible emissions (3Gtec/yr) by Earth population, each human can EITHER: - Use one Paris-NYC flight per year, - OR eat meat, - OR heat their home, - OR drive to work. Choose one. All EU calculations about emissions are based on this target, but it’s too early to tell people. It’s based on: Earth absorbs 3 gigatons-equivalent-carbon by night, so we can emit as much. And that’s what humanity emitted in 1990, so it’s achievable. Since then, we’ve double or trippled. For myself, I consider that the only flaw in this reasoning is that dividing the global permissible emissions by population “is communism”, because it assumes that every human should be given the same pay. I consider it’s normal that some earn much more. That’s the only flaw, and that’s because I’m a capitalist, but it’s great to have the ballpark figure of what would be FAIR to consume for everyone. (I also have doubts about scientists’ reliability when topics are heavily politicized, but that’s my affair, at least I’m repeating their conclusions as-is, so you can judge).

ryukafalz 4y ago

Yes, many of us on this forum are extraordinarily wealthy by global standards, myself included. I think that gives us some responsibility to reduce our impact on the planet where we’re able. I don’t think we can justify asking those who are already struggling to do more individually, but in this highest income bracket I think we certainly can.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

eastbound 4y ago

Only because India and Africa skew the average by having extremely large population. Given a certain amount of wealth, they chose to divide it between more kids, of course each will have to consume less. Western countries chose low-density, i.e. have few kids per family, which means each can afford more. It was our sacrifice. Fewer kids. Smaller extended families, even for Christmas. Less human happiness. Everything bet on each kid. But at least each of them can afford housing, and our girls can leave home without having to find a husband, if ever. China, on the other hand, deserves a much larger share of emissions, since, despite being overpopulated, they sacrificed themselves to be able to control overpopulation, and they work like crazy. Summary: Divide carbon emissions by country, not by headcount, because if you calculate by headcount, you give incentive to reproduce like rabbits, which is causing global warming.

rat9988 4y ago
Summary: Divide carbon emissions by country, not by headcount. This is what happens when you read statistics wrong coupled with some preexisting bias that show in your choice of words.
shagie 4y ago
Regarding China, I would suggest reading https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57018837 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57018837 (2019) and consider that it hasn't exactly shown itself to be responsible with development. And while 2021 and 2022 are seeing a drop ( https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-see-longest-sustained-drop-in-a-decade/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-se... ) there is every indication that it will pick right back up and accelerate. > Even as China’s coal demand is falling, the output from domestic coal mines is increasing rapidly. This resulted in a major overall drop in coal imports in the first quarter of the year, as reported by China Customs, and allowed coal plants and other operators to fill up stockpiles that were depleted during last year’s coal shortage. > Investment in new coal- and gas-fired power capacity is also continuing at a high level. In the first four months of the year, at least 18 thermal power projects started construction, with a total capacity of 12.8 gigawatts (GW). Another 19 projects with a total capacity of 13.0GW were approved for construction.

kcplate 4y ago

Funny how this stating facts as the (blank) contributes (blank)% of (blank). Can be either political correct or not depending what the (blank)s are.