6 ms·

"A billionaire emits a million times more greenhouse gases than the average person." https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/billionaire-emits-million-times-mo

"A billionaire emits a million times more greenhouse gases than the average person." 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... Think about this next time your paper straw falls apart and Zuck is talking about climate change. >Zuckerberg, a very vocal advocate for climate change action, has added a $300 million mega-yacht to his collection, which includes a Gulfstream G650 jet.

Sabinus 2y ago
If carbon emissions were taxed I would have no issue with this. Ostensibly, the rich have earned their greater share of the national wealth/output (including CO2 emission budget), as long as they are paying fairly for it.
- YetAnotherNick 2y ago
  The news title is such wrong. They meant billioniares who have share in greenhouse gas emitting companies have million times more than average shareholder. It's not related to emitting greenhouse gas. The problem with carbon tax is the opposite. It would disproportionately tax poor higher. The carbon usage doesn't go up by 100x if the income increases by 100x.
  - kelseyfrog 2y ago
    Except not all carbon taxes are equal. Taxing investments[1] in carbon emitting investments is such a proposal. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgA0UgSEDjI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgA0UgSEDjI (2m22s)
  - specialist 2y ago
    What's the alternative(s)? IIRC carbon tax would be at point of use? So biggest "hard to transition" polluters like metal, concrete, electricity would pay most? IIRC 2, most carbon tax advocates are also huge into investing in public transit, EVs, weatherization, heat pumps. In fact, BIL and IRA stipulate 40% apportionment. So doesn't that mitigate the regressiveness of a carbon tax?
    - YetAnotherNick 2y ago
      > So biggest "hard to transition" polluters like metal, concrete, electricity would pay most? No, the people using metal, concrete, electricity would pay it. It's not like the profitability of industry goes down over tax.
- nawgz 2y ago
  It's not like money can meaningfully reduce carbon in the atmosphere at this point in time, so it's pretty much impossible to "earn" the "right" to this type of destructive externality.
  - charliea0 2y ago
    You can remove carbon from the atmosphere for $1000 per ton. That would be a reasonable emission tax.
- candiddevmike 2y ago
  > the rich have earned their greater share Source?
- ipaddr 2y ago
  Should they have more votes in elections? Money can only buy things that are for sale.
  - ribosometronome 2y ago
    Well, he's not proposing letting Zuck buy anything, he's saying we should be taxing Zuck so that his buying of stuff isn't also destroying the planet. Being able to buy stuff that negatively affects the planet isn't really in question by most people.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- psadauskas 2y ago
  Zuckerberg made ~$10,000,000/hr last year (source: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/mark-zuckerberg-made-around-9-170242251.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/mark-zuckerberg-made-around-9...) Do you think the "greater share" he "earned" is really 10,000x the average tech worker? Or 640,000x the minimum wage?
  - BurningFrog 2y ago
    Empirically, that is how much money people have voluntarily given him. He was clearly worth the money for those people.
  - qaq 2y ago
    So when FB stock tanked and he lost a ton of money does it mean he was making minus whatever number of millions per hour. Maybe converting asset valuation to hourly earnings is not that great of an idea. Anyone can buy FB shares and get same upside Zuck gets.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Do you think the "greater share" he "earned" is really 10,000x the average tech worker? Yes. It doesn't seem unreasonable to the point of dismissal to consider that he's changed the world to within many orders of magnitude of that which the avererage person, particularly the average minimum-wage earner, does. That doesn't mean he has. But the number being four or five orders of magnitude doesn't strike me as damning.
    - worik 2y ago
      > he's changed the world to within many orders of magnitude of that which the ... the average minimum-wage earner, does. Golly. He changed the world, so now he gets to burn it?
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > He changed the world, so now he gets to burn it? Non sequitur. A college student having a pet can be reasonable. That doesn't mean they can do whatever they like with it.
- worik 2y ago
  > If carbon emissions were taxed I would have no issue with this. Really? > the rich have earned their greater share of the national wealth/output (including CO2 emission budget), Do you think so? The future of our organised society is threatened by this. Is that OK if you are rich and have "earned [sic] their greater share" Think about it....
gruez 2y ago
>"A billionaire emits a million times more greenhouse gases than the average person." https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/billionaire-emits-mi https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/billionaire-emits-mi... The methodology used for that headline is questionable. Most of that comes from their investments rather than flying private jets or whatever. That's questionable because it's not entirely obvious who the emissions of a company should be allocated to. Why should BP's shareholders be on the hook for the emissions from the oil it sells, rather than its customers who are actually burning the oil?
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  > Why should BP's shareholders be on the hook for the emissions from the oil it sells, rather than its customers who are actually burning the oil? Both drug users and drug dealers are considered complicit in the social impacts of that business.
  - Rebelgecko 2y ago
    Equating shareholders to dealers doesn't feel like the best analogy
    - realce 2y ago
      Both charities and charity funders are considered complicit in the social impacts of that charity's output.
      - ipaddr 2y ago
        Wouldn't teachers but performing a harm if they taught a serial killer. The company who made the breakfast of a rapist should be charged with the crime? It is what a person does with that breakfast cereal not the cereal itself.
        realce 2y ago
        > The company who made the breakfast of a rapist should be charged with the crime? The company is not literally investing in the endeavor of the rapist, the teacher is not literally investing in the outcome of the killer, investors/funders literally expect the outcome of the thing they invest in to continue without ambiguity. These are much less fitting than the drug-dealer analogy.
jonas21 2y ago
> based on a detailed analysis of the investments of 125 of the richest billionaires in some of the world's biggest corporates and the carbon emissions of these investments. These billionaires have a collective $2.4 trillion stake in 183 companies. Oh, come on. Counting the carbon emissions of the companies in their stock portfolio is completely absurd.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- cool_dude85 2y ago
  Why's that? The companies broadly exist to make money for their shareholders, and the shareholders decide what the company does. Couldn't Exxon's shareholders agree to immediately cease Exxon's oil production, for example?
  - gruez 2y ago
    And what do you think will happen next? That oil production would cease? Or would another company take its place?
  - kortilla 2y ago
    It’s double counting. You can’t hold the shareholders accountable for the emission and then also blame it on the person that burns it in a jet engine.
yongjik 2y ago
Are we going to be angry that billionaires exist, which might be one thing (whether I agree with it or not), or are we going to be selectively angry at them only when some of them actually try to do something for the environment? Context matters.
- worik 2y ago
  > are we going to be selectively angry at them only when some of them actually try to do something for the environment? I would be the opposite of angry if Zuck grounded his private jets, and walked
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  >Are we going to be angry that billionaires exist I'll take this one. Honestly, environmental impact is a lower priority reason for it.
BobAliceInATree 2y ago
Paper straws are fighting plastic pollution not greenhouse gases, so comparing them makes no sense. That being said, if you're reading this comment, you very likely in the top 20% of carbon emitters globally, so don't get all smug about it.
- buzzerbetrayed 2y ago
  Fighting plastic pollution by singling out plastic straws doesn’t make sense to begin with, so…
  - serial_dev 2y ago
    Well, a plastic straw was stuck in the nose of a turtle, and the image of this went viral, so any kind of rational arguments are irrelevant…
  - consteval 2y ago
    These endeavors virtually never make sense. Their intention is to single out consumers and make them feel bad for their habits. In actuality, consumers have little to no choice in the products they use. I couldn't live a plastic-free life even if I tried, and I'm somewhat well off. When you have to shop at Walmart to make it, your influence is even less. It's a strategy in responsibility shifting. Rationally, the source of pollution does not lie in the single mother eating with her family at Waffle House and using a plastic straw.
- wkat4242 2y ago
  > Paper straws are fighting plastic pollution not greenhouse gases, so comparing them makes no sense. Yes and no. These are almost never recycled and in a lot of places they are burned, not buried so they do emit CO2. Unfortunately in Europe they replaced them with pfas coated paper which is worse for health and pollution (forever plastic)
  - simondotau 2y ago
    Generally speaking, products made from one material tend to be less bad than products made by glueing multiple materials together.
bawolff 2y ago
> A billionaire emits a million times more greenhouse gases than the average person." So what you are saying is that billionairs are a million times more climate friendly per-capita than us plebs. /s
johnnyanmac 2y ago
It's always a Yacht. Who are they trying to impress that so many billionaires fascinate over a yacht? Awful cost sinks into maintenance regardless of if you never use it.
s1artibartfast 2y ago
This is a pretty misleading figure. it includes the emissions of their companies. For musk it would be every spaceX launch and tesla built, as if there is no value being provided to consumers.

Sabinus 2y ago

If carbon emissions were taxed I would have no issue with this. Ostensibly, the rich have earned their greater share of the national wealth/output (including CO2 emission budget), as long as they are paying fairly for it.

YetAnotherNick 2y ago
The news title is such wrong. They meant billioniares who have share in greenhouse gas emitting companies have million times more than average shareholder. It's not related to emitting greenhouse gas. The problem with carbon tax is the opposite. It would disproportionately tax poor higher. The carbon usage doesn't go up by 100x if the income increases by 100x.
- kelseyfrog 2y ago
  Except not all carbon taxes are equal. Taxing investments[1] in carbon emitting investments is such a proposal. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgA0UgSEDjI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgA0UgSEDjI (2m22s)
- specialist 2y ago
  What's the alternative(s)? IIRC carbon tax would be at point of use? So biggest "hard to transition" polluters like metal, concrete, electricity would pay most? IIRC 2, most carbon tax advocates are also huge into investing in public transit, EVs, weatherization, heat pumps. In fact, BIL and IRA stipulate 40% apportionment. So doesn't that mitigate the regressiveness of a carbon tax?
  - YetAnotherNick 2y ago
    > So biggest "hard to transition" polluters like metal, concrete, electricity would pay most? No, the people using metal, concrete, electricity would pay it. It's not like the profitability of industry goes down over tax.
nawgz 2y ago
It's not like money can meaningfully reduce carbon in the atmosphere at this point in time, so it's pretty much impossible to "earn" the "right" to this type of destructive externality.
- charliea0 2y ago
  You can remove carbon from the atmosphere for $1000 per ton. That would be a reasonable emission tax.
candiddevmike 2y ago
> the rich have earned their greater share Source?
ipaddr 2y ago
Should they have more votes in elections? Money can only buy things that are for sale.
- ribosometronome 2y ago
  Well, he's not proposing letting Zuck buy anything, he's saying we should be taxing Zuck so that his buying of stuff isn't also destroying the planet. Being able to buy stuff that negatively affects the planet isn't really in question by most people.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
psadauskas 2y ago
Zuckerberg made ~$10,000,000/hr last year (source: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/mark-zuckerberg-made-around-9-170242251.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/mark-zuckerberg-made-around-9...) Do you think the "greater share" he "earned" is really 10,000x the average tech worker? Or 640,000x the minimum wage?
- BurningFrog 2y ago
  Empirically, that is how much money people have voluntarily given him. He was clearly worth the money for those people.
- qaq 2y ago
  So when FB stock tanked and he lost a ton of money does it mean he was making minus whatever number of millions per hour. Maybe converting asset valuation to hourly earnings is not that great of an idea. Anyone can buy FB shares and get same upside Zuck gets.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Do you think the "greater share" he "earned" is really 10,000x the average tech worker? Yes. It doesn't seem unreasonable to the point of dismissal to consider that he's changed the world to within many orders of magnitude of that which the avererage person, particularly the average minimum-wage earner, does. That doesn't mean he has. But the number being four or five orders of magnitude doesn't strike me as damning.
  - worik 2y ago
    > he's changed the world to within many orders of magnitude of that which the ... the average minimum-wage earner, does. Golly. He changed the world, so now he gets to burn it?
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > He changed the world, so now he gets to burn it? Non sequitur. A college student having a pet can be reasonable. That doesn't mean they can do whatever they like with it.
worik 2y ago
> If carbon emissions were taxed I would have no issue with this. Really? > the rich have earned their greater share of the national wealth/output (including CO2 emission budget), Do you think so? The future of our organised society is threatened by this. Is that OK if you are rich and have "earned [sic] their greater share" Think about it....

gruez 2y ago

>"A billionaire emits a million times more greenhouse gases than the average person." https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/billionaire-emits-mi https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/billionaire-emits-mi... The methodology used for that headline is questionable. Most of that comes from their investments rather than flying private jets or whatever. That's questionable because it's not entirely obvious who the emissions of a company should be allocated to. Why should BP's shareholders be on the hook for the emissions from the oil it sells, rather than its customers who are actually burning the oil?

SoftTalker 2y ago
> Why should BP's shareholders be on the hook for the emissions from the oil it sells, rather than its customers who are actually burning the oil? Both drug users and drug dealers are considered complicit in the social impacts of that business.
- Rebelgecko 2y ago
  Equating shareholders to dealers doesn't feel like the best analogy
  - realce 2y ago
    Both charities and charity funders are considered complicit in the social impacts of that charity's output.
    - ipaddr 2y ago
      Wouldn't teachers but performing a harm if they taught a serial killer. The company who made the breakfast of a rapist should be charged with the crime? It is what a person does with that breakfast cereal not the cereal itself.
      - realce 2y ago
        > The company who made the breakfast of a rapist should be charged with the crime? The company is not literally investing in the endeavor of the rapist, the teacher is not literally investing in the outcome of the killer, investors/funders literally expect the outcome of the thing they invest in to continue without ambiguity. These are much less fitting than the drug-dealer analogy.

jonas21 2y ago

> based on a detailed analysis of the investments of 125 of the richest billionaires in some of the world's biggest corporates and the carbon emissions of these investments. These billionaires have a collective $2.4 trillion stake in 183 companies. Oh, come on. Counting the carbon emissions of the companies in their stock portfolio is completely absurd.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
cool_dude85 2y ago
Why's that? The companies broadly exist to make money for their shareholders, and the shareholders decide what the company does. Couldn't Exxon's shareholders agree to immediately cease Exxon's oil production, for example?
- gruez 2y ago
  And what do you think will happen next? That oil production would cease? Or would another company take its place?
- kortilla 2y ago
  It’s double counting. You can’t hold the shareholders accountable for the emission and then also blame it on the person that burns it in a jet engine.

yongjik 2y ago

Are we going to be angry that billionaires exist, which might be one thing (whether I agree with it or not), or are we going to be selectively angry at them only when some of them actually try to do something for the environment? Context matters.

worik 2y ago
> are we going to be selectively angry at them only when some of them actually try to do something for the environment? I would be the opposite of angry if Zuck grounded his private jets, and walked
johnnyanmac 2y ago
>Are we going to be angry that billionaires exist I'll take this one. Honestly, environmental impact is a lower priority reason for it.

BobAliceInATree 2y ago

Paper straws are fighting plastic pollution not greenhouse gases, so comparing them makes no sense. That being said, if you're reading this comment, you very likely in the top 20% of carbon emitters globally, so don't get all smug about it.

buzzerbetrayed 2y ago
Fighting plastic pollution by singling out plastic straws doesn’t make sense to begin with, so…
- serial_dev 2y ago
  Well, a plastic straw was stuck in the nose of a turtle, and the image of this went viral, so any kind of rational arguments are irrelevant…
- consteval 2y ago
  These endeavors virtually never make sense. Their intention is to single out consumers and make them feel bad for their habits. In actuality, consumers have little to no choice in the products they use. I couldn't live a plastic-free life even if I tried, and I'm somewhat well off. When you have to shop at Walmart to make it, your influence is even less. It's a strategy in responsibility shifting. Rationally, the source of pollution does not lie in the single mother eating with her family at Waffle House and using a plastic straw.
wkat4242 2y ago
> Paper straws are fighting plastic pollution not greenhouse gases, so comparing them makes no sense. Yes and no. These are almost never recycled and in a lot of places they are burned, not buried so they do emit CO2. Unfortunately in Europe they replaced them with pfas coated paper which is worse for health and pollution (forever plastic)
- simondotau 2y ago
  Generally speaking, products made from one material tend to be less bad than products made by glueing multiple materials together.

bawolff 2y ago

> A billionaire emits a million times more greenhouse gases than the average person." So what you are saying is that billionairs are a million times more climate friendly per-capita than us plebs. /s

johnnyanmac 2y ago

It's always a Yacht. Who are they trying to impress that so many billionaires fascinate over a yacht? Awful cost sinks into maintenance regardless of if you never use it.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

This is a pretty misleading figure. it includes the emissions of their companies. For musk it would be every spaceX launch and tesla built, as if there is no value being provided to consumers.