4 ms·

I don't think that's entirely true. 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions (https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100

by JadeNB 3y ago

I don't think that's entirely true. 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions (https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10... ); I don't have the statistics—I seem to remember reading something on this recently, but I can't find it—but I think that it's not unreasonable to believe that a few billionaires, and now trillionaires, might have a similarly disproportionate impact on emissions.

nerdsniped529 3y ago
[flagged]
chii 3y ago
> 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions these companies emitted carbon to satisfy the demands for goods/services from various populations around the world. By pinning the emissions onto the companies like this as responsible, it is indirectly implying that the end consumer has no responsibility. Which is absolutely not true. The way, i think, to fix it is to price carbon emissions properly. This requires _all_ countries in the world to participate and enforce.
jl6 3y ago
The ultra-wealthy do have a disproportionate impact on resource consumption and carbon emission (lots of air travel, fancy cars, large houses and more) but it’s not 10000x like their wealth might imply. Their companies might be responsible for a majority of global emissions, but guess who’s responsible for a majority of those companies’ revenue? It’s everyone. When we buy a thing, we are funding the activity needed to produce the thing. When we see a small group of people getting ultra rich off economic activity, it’s tempting to blame them for all of the consequences of that economic activity, because that makes the problem seem easier to solve (“just get rid of the billionaires!”). But changing the beneficiary of all that corporate profit doesn’t change the underlying economic activity that is driving consumption and driving pollution. I’m not saying bad actors haven’t acted badly - demand generation is pretty evil, and we should definitely curtail that - but the problem is ultimately not the man in the boardroom or the White House or the luxury yacht. It’s the man in the mirror.
- paulmd 3y ago
  > The ultra-wealthy do have a disproportionate impact on resource consumption and carbon emission (lots of air travel, fancy cars, large houses and more) but it’s not 10000x like their wealth might imply. it's actually around a million times. a single air trip alone (let alone a private jet) emits far more carbon than an average family, and the ultra-wealthy fly a lot. plus the rest of their emissions too, of course. https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/billionaire-emits-million-times-more-greenhouse-gases-average-person https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/billionaire-emits-mi... as the twitter classic goes: "the guy with only an Xbox one and a mattress in his room probably has the lowest carbon footprint but no one wants to talk about that". and yeah, that's dead right, the billionaire is probably into the billions of times multiplier over that guy. that's why it's silly to whammy on consumer electronics etc as supposedly being some horrible social sin - people are going to want to do things, and actually things that keep you in your house and not traveling via car or (especially!) air travel do drastically reduce emissions overall. Even buying a new PC every year is peanuts compared to your spring break in florida.
  - nkurz 3y ago
    I think you are interpreting your linked article wrong. The claimed "million times" is if you add up the effects of their investments. Individually (from flying, driving, houses, etc) it says the "average billionaire" uses about 8000 tons CO2e vs 14 for the "average American", so about 600x.

by JadeNB 3y ago

nerdsniped529 3y ago

[flagged]

chii 3y ago

> 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions these companies emitted carbon to satisfy the demands for goods/services from various populations around the world. By pinning the emissions onto the companies like this as responsible, it is indirectly implying that the end consumer has no responsibility. Which is absolutely not true. The way, i think, to fix it is to price carbon emissions properly. This requires _all_ countries in the world to participate and enforce.

jl6 3y ago

The ultra-wealthy do have a disproportionate impact on resource consumption and carbon emission (lots of air travel, fancy cars, large houses and more) but it’s not 10000x like their wealth might imply. Their companies might be responsible for a majority of global emissions, but guess who’s responsible for a majority of those companies’ revenue? It’s everyone. When we buy a thing, we are funding the activity needed to produce the thing. When we see a small group of people getting ultra rich off economic activity, it’s tempting to blame them for all of the consequences of that economic activity, because that makes the problem seem easier to solve (“just get rid of the billionaires!”). But changing the beneficiary of all that corporate profit doesn’t change the underlying economic activity that is driving consumption and driving pollution. I’m not saying bad actors haven’t acted badly - demand generation is pretty evil, and we should definitely curtail that - but the problem is ultimately not the man in the boardroom or the White House or the luxury yacht. It’s the man in the mirror.

paulmd 3y ago
> The ultra-wealthy do have a disproportionate impact on resource consumption and carbon emission (lots of air travel, fancy cars, large houses and more) but it’s not 10000x like their wealth might imply. it's actually around a million times. a single air trip alone (let alone a private jet) emits far more carbon than an average family, and the ultra-wealthy fly a lot. plus the rest of their emissions too, of course. https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/billionaire-emits-million-times-more-greenhouse-gases-average-person https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/billionaire-emits-mi... as the twitter classic goes: "the guy with only an Xbox one and a mattress in his room probably has the lowest carbon footprint but no one wants to talk about that". and yeah, that's dead right, the billionaire is probably into the billions of times multiplier over that guy. that's why it's silly to whammy on consumer electronics etc as supposedly being some horrible social sin - people are going to want to do things, and actually things that keep you in your house and not traveling via car or (especially!) air travel do drastically reduce emissions overall. Even buying a new PC every year is peanuts compared to your spring break in florida.
- nkurz 3y ago
  I think you are interpreting your linked article wrong. The claimed "million times" is if you add up the effects of their investments. Individually (from flying, driving, houses, etc) it says the "average billionaire" uses about 8000 tons CO2e vs 14 for the "average American", so about 600x.