4 ms·

You're not replying to a comment saying "poor people are the biggest contributors of CO2 emissions", you're replying to a comment saying "driving people into po

You're not replying to a comment saying "poor people are the biggest contributors of CO2 emissions", you're replying to a comment saying "driving people into poverty is the biggest contributor of CO2" So the thing to look at isn't poor people's emissions, it's rich people's emissions, given that (relatively speaking, bc increasing money supply just decreases its worth) the richer rich people are, the more poor people there are (or the poorer the poor people are). This is well-known, you can google and find tons of articles, but here's one from BBC: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20211025-climate-how-to-make-the-rich-pay-for-their-carbon-emissions https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20211025-climate-how-to-m... The poorer you are, the less you can individually consume, and the more you must go for things that are cheap at the expense of other things (e.g. buying single-use goods over and over is cheaper short-term than buying something made to last). I think the idea is that if more people were middle-class, we'd see consumers make better choices (personally, I don't see that happening without government intervention of some kind, but that could hurt poor people even more if it happened before poor people got more money to afford more eco-friendly choices). And on the opposite side of the spectrum, if rich people weren't quite as rich, they wouldn't consume quite as much in excess, and would lead to less emissions.

ntp85 4y ago
The parent comment was about a knee-capped economy which would also affect the rich, wouldn't it?
- jamescostian 4y ago
  Imagine if everyone made a little more money, except for rich people who made considerably more money. Prices would go up and pretty much everyone would struggle to consume as much (or, consume things of as high quality, or perhaps as eco-friendly), but rich people wouldn't really see much of a change in their spending power, since there's few of them and they're making considerably more. I'd argue that idea counters your argument. Unfortunately, that idea is more than just an idea: https://www.epi.org/blog/inflation-minimum-wages-and-profits-protecting-low-wage-workers-from-inflation-means-raising-the-minimum-wage/ https://www.epi.org/blog/inflation-minimum-wages-and-profits...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
lapcat 4y ago
> buying single-use goods over and over is cheaper short-term than buying something made to last Do you have examples of these — single-use goods that are contributing to global warming and that poor people are buying over and over, more so than wealthier people — or in general, any empirical evidence that poor people are following this economic strategy, thereby contributing to global warming? There's often a huge difference between what poor people actually do and think and what wealthier people believe poor people do and think.
- jamescostian 4y ago
  I think you've misunderstood my position. You mention: > that poor people are buying over and over, more so than wealthier people Not only is this a line of argument I disagree with, I even explicitly said I disagreed with it in this part of the comment you are replying to: >> I think the idea is that if more people were middle-class, we'd see consumers make better choices (personally, I don't see that happening without government intervention of some kind
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > I think you've misunderstood my position. I'm definitely confused about it now. You said: "The poorer you are, the less you can individually consume, and the more you must go for things that are cheap at the expense of other things (e.g. buying single-use goods over and over is cheaper short-term than buying something made to last)." I disagree that the part in parentheses follows logically from the part outside the parentheses, and I disagree that the part in parentheses necessarily represents the economic strategy of poor people. So, I'm not sure what your view is on that, or what exactly you intended with that sentence.
    - jamescostian 4y ago
      > I disagree that the part in parentheses follows logically from the part outside the parentheses Me too, it does not! It's the reverse, the part in parentheses is what causes the larger part. Say I want water. A case of water bottles is a lot "cheaper short-term" than a single, reusable, water bottle. That's an example of the parenthetical, I'm sure you can think of many more. Now, look at how it connects to the part of the sentence outside of the parenthetical, and directly before it: "the more you must go for things that are cheap at the expense of other things" So for example, if I were poor enough, I'd buy cases of water instead of a water bottle, EVEN IF I knew the single use water bottle was better for the environment and a better choice long-term! Note that I do NOT assert that most or even many poor people, given more money, would switch to reusable water bottles on their own (hence the "government intervention" bit). If you're confused by the first half of that sentence, think of it this way: if I have $10 and you have $1000, which of us can buy more plastic? > I disagree that the part in parentheses necessarily represents the economic strategy of poor people This really isn't about poor people being the most environmentally conscious or the least environmentally conscious. It's about "this box of pads costs the cheapest so I'll buy it". Even if you imagine a tree-hugging poor person looking at a diva cup thinking "this is cheaper long-term and it's better for the environment", if they don't have the money for it, or if spending that money means not eating for quite a while, then they're not going to buy it.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

ntp85 4y ago

The parent comment was about a knee-capped economy which would also affect the rich, wouldn't it?

jamescostian 4y ago
Imagine if everyone made a little more money, except for rich people who made considerably more money. Prices would go up and pretty much everyone would struggle to consume as much (or, consume things of as high quality, or perhaps as eco-friendly), but rich people wouldn't really see much of a change in their spending power, since there's few of them and they're making considerably more. I'd argue that idea counters your argument. Unfortunately, that idea is more than just an idea: https://www.epi.org/blog/inflation-minimum-wages-and-profits-protecting-low-wage-workers-from-inflation-means-raising-the-minimum-wage/ https://www.epi.org/blog/inflation-minimum-wages-and-profits...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

lapcat 4y ago

> buying single-use goods over and over is cheaper short-term than buying something made to last Do you have examples of these — single-use goods that are contributing to global warming and that poor people are buying over and over, more so than wealthier people — or in general, any empirical evidence that poor people are following this economic strategy, thereby contributing to global warming? There's often a huge difference between what poor people actually do and think and what wealthier people believe poor people do and think.

jamescostian 4y ago
I think you've misunderstood my position. You mention: > that poor people are buying over and over, more so than wealthier people Not only is this a line of argument I disagree with, I even explicitly said I disagreed with it in this part of the comment you are replying to: >> I think the idea is that if more people were middle-class, we'd see consumers make better choices (personally, I don't see that happening without government intervention of some kind
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- lapcat 4y ago
  > I think you've misunderstood my position. I'm definitely confused about it now. You said: "The poorer you are, the less you can individually consume, and the more you must go for things that are cheap at the expense of other things (e.g. buying single-use goods over and over is cheaper short-term than buying something made to last)." I disagree that the part in parentheses follows logically from the part outside the parentheses, and I disagree that the part in parentheses necessarily represents the economic strategy of poor people. So, I'm not sure what your view is on that, or what exactly you intended with that sentence.
  - jamescostian 4y ago
    > I disagree that the part in parentheses follows logically from the part outside the parentheses Me too, it does not! It's the reverse, the part in parentheses is what causes the larger part. Say I want water. A case of water bottles is a lot "cheaper short-term" than a single, reusable, water bottle. That's an example of the parenthetical, I'm sure you can think of many more. Now, look at how it connects to the part of the sentence outside of the parenthetical, and directly before it: "the more you must go for things that are cheap at the expense of other things" So for example, if I were poor enough, I'd buy cases of water instead of a water bottle, EVEN IF I knew the single use water bottle was better for the environment and a better choice long-term! Note that I do NOT assert that most or even many poor people, given more money, would switch to reusable water bottles on their own (hence the "government intervention" bit). If you're confused by the first half of that sentence, think of it this way: if I have $10 and you have $1000, which of us can buy more plastic? > I disagree that the part in parentheses necessarily represents the economic strategy of poor people This really isn't about poor people being the most environmentally conscious or the least environmentally conscious. It's about "this box of pads costs the cheapest so I'll buy it". Even if you imagine a tree-hugging poor person looking at a diva cup thinking "this is cheaper long-term and it's better for the environment", if they don't have the money for it, or if spending that money means not eating for quite a while, then they're not going to buy it.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]