4 ms·

> How much is the "billionaire class"'s contribution to global warming? https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000190 https://journ

by hnbad 3y ago

> How much is the "billionaire class"'s contribution to global warming? https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000190 https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal... For the US, the top 1% income bracket generates 15-17% of all emissions, the top 10% generates 40%. Also: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rich-americans-have-higher-carbon-footprints-than-other-wealthy-people/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rich-americans-ha... This article states that the top 10% in the US generates more than double of the top 10% in Europe and still nearly double than the top 10% in Asia per person. The article also correctly points out that the poorest half of the US also generates as many emissions as the middle 40% of Europe while being "almost twice as poor", so this is not at all about "downgrading their lifestyles". Even poor people in the US have a larger footprint than wealthier people than them in Europe. If you consider anything moving away from all produce available year-round, nearly identical products released every year with an artificially shortened lifespan, AC/heating running constantly because of a complete lack of insulation, car-centric infrastructure because of a complete lack of walkable cities or public transport and disposable everything a "lifestyle downgrade", then yes, it will require lifestyle downgrades. But without a billionaire class (i.e. raising marginal tax rates to 90% so wealth is reinvested into the economy rather than hoarded) many of these things can be resolved without serious downgrades for most people and actually upgrading the lifestyles of the poorest (e.g. because you no longer have to maintain an expensive gas-guzzling vehicle to get anywhere).

gruez 3y ago
>https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal... >For example, in the producer framework households receiving wage or investment income from a power plant are responsible for the direct emissions it generates, while in the supplier framework households receiving wage or investment income from selling financial services or fossil fuel to that power plant are responsible for the plant’s emissions, proportional to their importance as a supplier This approach seems questionable. In that model there's some sort of joint responsibility between the producer and the consumer. However, I argue that if someone is driving a SUV, he alone is responsible for all the emissions. I'm not sure why you'd get to blame whoever owns the oil company. After all, the only reason why the oil company is drilling for oil is that people want the oil, so it's questionable to blame the owner. If the driver switched to EVs, the oil consumption will disappear. >The article also correctly points out that the poorest half of the US also generates as many emissions as the middle 40% of Europe while being "almost twice as poor", so this is not at all about "downgrading their lifestyles". Even poor people in the US have a larger footprint than wealthier people than them in Europe. I'm not sure what your point is? "Just be like europe"? "America bad"? >If you consider anything moving away from all produce available year-round, nearly identical products released every year with an artificially shortened lifespan, AC/heating running constantly because of a complete lack of insulation [...] and disposable everything How much do those measures move the needle? For instance single use plastics (ie. "disposable everything") is basically a non-issue when it comes to overall greenhouse emissions, and might even be better than the alternatives in some cases (eg. https://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2018/02/978-87-93614-73-4.pdf https://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2018/02/978-87-93614-...) >car-centric infrastructure because of a complete lack of walkable cities or public transport [..] then yes, it will require lifestyle downgrades Since US is sparsely populated, not having cars is most definitely a lifestyle downgrade. You could argue "but we can just make public transport better!" but the economics just don't work as well compared to europe, so you'd pay more and/or pay less which is still arguably a downgrade. Moving to denser/"walkable" cities rather than suburbs is also a solution, but is also a downgrade. Except to the most diehard urbanists, most would prefer a 4 bedroom house in the suburbs with a yard than a 3 bedroom apartment.
- hnbad 3y ago
  > I'm not sure what your point is? "Just be like europe"? "America bad"? My point is that the US is doing something that is making everyone's footprint significantly larger without improving their quality of life, so clearly there are other factors to reducing the footprint than "downgrade the lifestyle". > You could argue "but we can just make public transport better!" but the economics just don't work as well compared to europe, so you'd pay more and/or pay less which is still arguably a downgrade. Citation needed. > Moving to denser/"walkable" cities rather than suburbs is also a solution, but is also a downgrade. Citation needed. Also the US doesn't have walkable cities, so you're comparing suburbs to a thing I already said is bad, not the thing I said would be better. > Except to the most diehard urbanists, most would prefer a 4 bedroom house in the suburbs with a yard than a 3 bedroom apartment. Do you think this preference is part of the immutable fabric of reality or do you think this is an emergent property caused by the total lack of public transport infrastructure, horrible zoning and white flight? "Urban center" vs "suburbs" is a false dichotomy caused by the missing middle in American urban planning, namely mixed-use zoning. You don't need a car in the suburbs because the suburbs are sparsely populated, you need a car in the suburbs because everything other than housing is miles away and despite the roads being ridiculously congested the infrastructure is hostile to bikes and pedestrians and there are no trams, metros or buses. Meanwhile US urban centers are so hyperdense that nobody wants to live there and New Yorkers in 2023 are throwing a fit about the introduction of trash cans because there's literally nowhere to put them without impeding traffic, vehicular or otherwise. Frankly, all I hear from you boils down to the same old tired "the US can't be improved because it's special" which is not just another boring rehash of American Exceptionalism but also demonstrably wrong. The thing holding the US back is that one of the major political problems has no qualms pushing nonsense conspiracy theories like the so-called "15 minute cities" being part of a dystopian plan to create real-world Hunger Games rather than a catchy "doing the bare minimum" plan to address climate change.

by hnbad 3y ago

gruez 3y ago

>https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal... >For example, in the producer framework households receiving wage or investment income from a power plant are responsible for the direct emissions it generates, while in the supplier framework households receiving wage or investment income from selling financial services or fossil fuel to that power plant are responsible for the plant’s emissions, proportional to their importance as a supplier This approach seems questionable. In that model there's some sort of joint responsibility between the producer and the consumer. However, I argue that if someone is driving a SUV, he alone is responsible for all the emissions. I'm not sure why you'd get to blame whoever owns the oil company. After all, the only reason why the oil company is drilling for oil is that people want the oil, so it's questionable to blame the owner. If the driver switched to EVs, the oil consumption will disappear. >The article also correctly points out that the poorest half of the US also generates as many emissions as the middle 40% of Europe while being "almost twice as poor", so this is not at all about "downgrading their lifestyles". Even poor people in the US have a larger footprint than wealthier people than them in Europe. I'm not sure what your point is? "Just be like europe"? "America bad"? >If you consider anything moving away from all produce available year-round, nearly identical products released every year with an artificially shortened lifespan, AC/heating running constantly because of a complete lack of insulation [...] and disposable everything How much do those measures move the needle? For instance single use plastics (ie. "disposable everything") is basically a non-issue when it comes to overall greenhouse emissions, and might even be better than the alternatives in some cases (eg. https://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2018/02/978-87-93614-73-4.pdf https://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2018/02/978-87-93614-...) >car-centric infrastructure because of a complete lack of walkable cities or public transport [..] then yes, it will require lifestyle downgrades Since US is sparsely populated, not having cars is most definitely a lifestyle downgrade. You could argue "but we can just make public transport better!" but the economics just don't work as well compared to europe, so you'd pay more and/or pay less which is still arguably a downgrade. Moving to denser/"walkable" cities rather than suburbs is also a solution, but is also a downgrade. Except to the most diehard urbanists, most would prefer a 4 bedroom house in the suburbs with a yard than a 3 bedroom apartment.

hnbad 3y ago
> I'm not sure what your point is? "Just be like europe"? "America bad"? My point is that the US is doing something that is making everyone's footprint significantly larger without improving their quality of life, so clearly there are other factors to reducing the footprint than "downgrade the lifestyle". > You could argue "but we can just make public transport better!" but the economics just don't work as well compared to europe, so you'd pay more and/or pay less which is still arguably a downgrade. Citation needed. > Moving to denser/"walkable" cities rather than suburbs is also a solution, but is also a downgrade. Citation needed. Also the US doesn't have walkable cities, so you're comparing suburbs to a thing I already said is bad, not the thing I said would be better. > Except to the most diehard urbanists, most would prefer a 4 bedroom house in the suburbs with a yard than a 3 bedroom apartment. Do you think this preference is part of the immutable fabric of reality or do you think this is an emergent property caused by the total lack of public transport infrastructure, horrible zoning and white flight? "Urban center" vs "suburbs" is a false dichotomy caused by the missing middle in American urban planning, namely mixed-use zoning. You don't need a car in the suburbs because the suburbs are sparsely populated, you need a car in the suburbs because everything other than housing is miles away and despite the roads being ridiculously congested the infrastructure is hostile to bikes and pedestrians and there are no trams, metros or buses. Meanwhile US urban centers are so hyperdense that nobody wants to live there and New Yorkers in 2023 are throwing a fit about the introduction of trash cans because there's literally nowhere to put them without impeding traffic, vehicular or otherwise. Frankly, all I hear from you boils down to the same old tired "the US can't be improved because it's special" which is not just another boring rehash of American Exceptionalism but also demonstrably wrong. The thing holding the US back is that one of the major political problems has no qualms pushing nonsense conspiracy theories like the so-called "15 minute cities" being part of a dystopian plan to create real-world Hunger Games rather than a catchy "doing the bare minimum" plan to address climate change.