6 ms·

Musk, Bezos need just 90 minutes to match your lifetime carbon footprint: Oxfam

65 points by rntn 2y ago

ivewonyoung 2y ago
> Of the 50 billionaires studied, around 40 percent of their investments were in high-polluting industries like oil, mining, and shipping, with few having significant renewable energy investments. That means the average billionaire's investment portfolio is responsible for 340 times the emissions of private jets and yachts - combined. It doesn't make sense to tally someone's investments as them polluting. If they sell half their investment, the pollution emissions on earth don't go down. Oxfam just lost its credibility with me.
- CalRobert 2y ago
  In isolation, yes, but combined with divestment or investment via etf’s like VOTE it may be meaningful at some point.
- bpfrh 2y ago
  >It doesn't make sense to tally someone's investments as them polluting. If they sell half their investment, the pollution emissions on earth don't go down. No but your income depends on pollution happening and you investing in X company enables that company to raise cash to keep on polluting or in worst case start polluting.
  - ivewonyoung 2y ago
    The demand does not go down, so someone else will step in to cash in. If all social media companies decided to shut down tomorrow because it's harmful to society, how many people on HN would be willing to launch their own to cash in? Probably almost everyone.
- nobunaga 2y ago
  What a silly take. Of course it wouldnt change things in an instant but i twould long term. So if everyone divested from fossil fuel companies, tanking their stock price, and redirected that cash to renewable energy companies, you are saying no impact would happen in the long term? I beg to differ. It would force these companies to actually change their long term strategies so that investors continue to provide cash to them. Dont worry, Oxfam doesnt need your simplistic views and support based on your own simplistic analysis.
- fazeirony 2y ago
  not really. one's investments will contribute to the companies' access to money which is then used in their businesses...to further pollute. whilst you are correct when one investor pulls out it doesn't reduce carbon emissions, you do have agency where you invest. for these people [those that choose to invest in companies that have poor environmental track records], their investments absolutely are perpetuating the problem.
- nicce 2y ago
  > It doesn't make sense to tally someone's investments as them polluting. If they sell half their investment, the pollution emissions on earth don't go down. Of course it makes. As long as someone keeps investing on things regardless of how much they pollute, the pollution will keep happening. People look for billionaires and see how they do invest. They think it is okay and good to invest for same things too, in order to make money. And pollution never ends.
- frereubu 2y ago
  They don't personally need the money from their investments any more given they have almost unimaginable amounts of it. However, if they collectively invested that wealth into realistic renewable energy companies / projects they could significantly shift the incentives of polluting energy companies. BP et al aren't going to take renewables seriously out of the goodness of their hearts (nor should they) so we have to create the economic environment in which they are incentivised to do that.
  - themaninthedark 2y ago
    The ridiculous amounts of money they have are their investments. Hasn't Musk done exactly what you are demanding of him with Tesla and what ever his solar company is?
    - frereubu 2y ago
      > The ridiculous amounts of money they have are their investments. C'mon, you know what I mean. I bet there are plenty of non-polluting investments that they hold too. They're not suddenly going to become bankrupt because of investing in renewable energy. Maybe they'd be able to afford one less yacht or private jet, but I presume that, like me, you don't really care about that either. > Hasn't Musk done exactly what you are demanding of him with Tesla and what ever his solar company is? To some extent, yes. Much as I despise Musk as a person he's done a huge amount for electric cars at least. I haven't heard anything about the solar company recently, and the last I heard it was languishing very far down in the list of Tesla priorities. Tesla home batteries seem to be pretty ubiquitous though. But we're also talking about personal emissions here, and he hasn't invented an electric jet yet. The point is that we need to radically reduce emissions, and me personally insulating my house doesn't make a blind bit of difference if those at the top of the pile don't make significant changes themselves.
- themaninthedark 2y ago
  I would agree, especially since they are calling out Musk and Bezos by name but don't name a single other person. I don't see Bill Gates, Al Gore or Taylor Swift being called out. IIRC the last time there a summit happened in Egypt someone put together a list of all those who flew in private jets and the reaction was to start masking the passenger manifests for "security".
  - frereubu 2y ago
    Yeah, while I generally agree with the direction of the article, not including someone like Taylor Swift make the argument too easy to dismiss.
- serallak 2y ago
  > shipping This is the odd one here. Sure, shipping/transportation as it is is highly polluting. But it's not something from which we as a civilization can opt out. We have to figure out how to reduce the impact, but having less of shipping is a non starter.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - shantara 2y ago
    A significant portion of the global shipping [1] is the transportation of fossil fuels, so a general transition to renewables would contribute to reducing that. [1] 40% according to https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelbarnard/2023/12/05/how-will-climate-action-change-the-face-of-global-shipping/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelbarnard/2023/12/05/how-w...
- ggu7hgfk8j 2y ago
  It really seems like scapegoating. Most of us want to live in a world with shipping and mining. They invest with our permission and encouragement. We have to take responsibility for that choice.
mathverse 2y ago
We are headed towards the future of what "Snowpiercer" depicts if we dont tackle this.
- cies 2y ago
  Based on what you come to this conclusion? Scientific consensus reached after removing all the dissenting voices? Sorry, but I cannot take this kind of scientific consensus serious: we need scientists to be able to openly object, or it becomes junk science. For example the "safe and effective" consensus we saw recently, that turned out to be total junk-science. And we have not yet faced the terrible consequences of that junk-science: on a societal level (MSM, most govt agencies) we just act as if it did not happen.
  - piva00 2y ago
    > For example the "safe and effective" consensus we saw recently, that turned out to be total junk-science. I don't understand this example, what are you referring to? And what was the total junk-science?
    - cies 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - piva00 2y ago
        I don't see any literature showing myocarditis through the roof, can you share some sources? As far as I can remember the sources I've read after 2 years of the vaccines rollout showed a small risk of temporary myocarditis in a very small cohort. The shots were quite effective at curbing spread by lowering the time people shed the virus, and also substantially lowering mortality among infected. If that's ineffective I think... You had the wrong expectations? I'd really appreciate sources for your extraordinary claims.
        cies 2y ago
melling 2y ago
[flagged]
- FuturisticGoat 2y ago
  [dead]
- andy_ppp 2y ago
  I would argue that having billionaires is pretty unnecessary for economies to function well. Accumulation of more money than can be spent in a thousand lifetimes is not a social good. Tax them as much as a high rate tax payer (at least) and don't let them do dodgy tricks to avoid capital gains and inheritance taxes!
  - melling 2y ago
    We’re talking about climate change. Try to stay on topic. If all the billionaires disappeared today, climate change would not be delayed by one day.
  - b3lvedere 2y ago
    I doubt we will ever tax the ultra-rich as they should be taxed.
  - matthewfelgate 2y ago
    Isn't this what the Soviet Union tried to do?
    - talldayo 2y ago
      It was one of the goals, specifically in the form of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" that prevents non-working social classes from engaging in politics. That would later evolve into a "state of the whole people" once it was perceived that class struggle had been eliminated. If you look at how Russia failed to modernize as a republic though, you could argue the current oligarchy is significantly more dangerous for the state and it's people. When the Soviet Union collapsed and Russia started migrating to a free market economy, the government deeply subsidized entrepreneurs in an attempt to stimulate their economy into competition. It would end up being one of the major contributing factors of their economic collapse, and persists today as a toxic link between business and politics that should have never been forged in the first place. Russian oligarchs put out mob hits on polticians - politicians send secret police to kill their opposition. It's about as potent an example of political corruption that exists in a so-called "democracy" today. I feel like you can see very clear echoes of this in America's modern economic strategy, the same sort of hubris from both Democrats and Republicans. America thought it would be smart to subsidize Elon Musk for sub-$25,000 cars he had no intention of ever making. Meanwhile, Elon is meeting with foreign dignitaries and shipping American jobs abroad to save his company instead of delivering on his promises. Elon must rather envy the violence and lawlessness of Russian economics.
mrob 2y ago
Like all externalities, the solution isn't social shaming, it's taxation. We need to introduce a carbon tax, and tariffs on trade with countries that don't enforce an equivalent tax. I suggest this tax income be distributed equally among all citizens, so that it functions as compensation paid from those who emit more than their fair share to those who emit less. I see no problem with billionaires emitting enormous quantities of CO2 so long as they pay for it. Wealth needs to have some privileges for capitalism to function correctly, and capitalism (with the state doing its duty to regulate market failures) is the best economic system we have.
- JoshTriplett 2y ago
  Agreed on taxing externalities, but rather than being used for redistribution, it should be used to fund carbon cleanup. I wonder if we could achieve the same net effect by allowing the carbon tax to be either negative or positive, paying people to produce net-negative CO2, so that it's possible to compete on who can do so most efficiently.
- chasd00 2y ago
  > I suggest this tax income be distributed equally among all citizens Why not just cut out the middle man and let us all keep what little income we have vs yet another tax. Everyone gets taxed right? Or do you mean tax for thee none for me?
  - mrob 2y ago
    Because that wouldn't have the desired effect of incentivizing reduction in CO2 emissions. The alternative is privately owned air and class action lawsuits at unprecedented scale.
  - fallingsquirrel 2y ago
    > Everyone gets taxed right? Yes, but your personal tax of $0.03 would be deducted from your $17 redistribution of Jeff Bezos's tax, so don't worry about getting yours, you'll still come out ahead.
  - kavenkanum 2y ago
grouchomarx 2y ago
SpaceX Falcon Heavy at launch emits more carbon dioxide in two minutes than a car would in two centuries
- ndr 2y ago
  Should we offset what each Tesla saves compared to non electric cars?
  - thagb 2y ago
    What are the numbers? How much energy goes into extracting rare earth materials, recycling batteries etc.? How is the electricity generated? How much is lost in transit and battery efficiency? What do the servers use that the Tesla communicates with behind the owner's back? These are real questions. I find it hard to get a comprehensive and unbiased analysis.
    - ivewonyoung 2y ago
      Covered at https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths
- ivewonyoung 2y ago
  It makes more sense to electrify 500 cars and switch electric production to clean energy rather than banning SpaceX Falcon Heavy. Because China electrifies cars and is developing competing rockets for space supremacy. I think it makes more sense to solve pollution with systemic solutions rather than play a blame game. Just tax private jet usage and use that money to decarbonize or something.
  - grouchomarx 2y ago
    No issues with space flight or falcon heavy specifically. My gripe is with oil and large interests campaigning against my "personal carbon footprint" while themselves polluting more than any of us can comprehend
lordswork 2y ago
We need a progressive carbon tax. They should be covering their emissions plus that of many others. Even they are in favor of this.
- al_borland 2y ago
  How would this be any different than someone buying carbon offsets, which are mostly a scam. The person buying them gets to feel superior, someone else gets a lot of money for effectively doing nothing, and the the environment suffers just the same.
  - tonyedgecombe 2y ago
    Carbon taxes are effective, unlike offsets.
  - schnitzelstoat 2y ago
    The money raised could be spent on non-carbon technologies or mitigation strategies. Plus as the cost of emitting carbon rises, people will search for alternatives. I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea, but if we want to go for the transition we need to do so wholeheartedly, not punishing poorer people with tariffs that keep EV's unaffordable because it helps some lobby groups.
    - spwa4 2y ago
      Could be - but isn't. > ... as the cost of emitting carbon rises, people will search for alternatives ... The only alternative for most poorer individuals is the power grid and while it is more convenient it is nowhere close to carbon based fuels in price. So it is used for small things, and for heating carbon based fuels are used. And, perhaps ironically, the grid is becoming on a per-person/per-customer basis more expensive because the people who traditionally pay the bill, large, industrial users, have by far the easiest time and the most to gain switching to solar.
      - therealdrag0 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
cies 2y ago
Capitalism needs fossils. It's how profits are amplified. Without govt intervention this will not change. Getting consumers to be carbon-police them selves is a diversion tactic: it makes no significant difference.
- mrob 2y ago
  Capitalism need energy. It doesn't have to be fossil fuels. If we'd had the good sense to ramp up nuclear power several decades ago then we wouldn't be in this predicament.
  - cies 2y ago
    Access to energy is a huge part of it. Fuel, to this day, is the easiest way to distribute energy. Industry is still heavily dependent on fossils. We have not managed to decouple from fossils: heavy industry, shipping, airports, ... There could be a scenario where the energy source is not fossils: but so far it's not in sight.
- matthewfelgate 2y ago
  Communist countries are some of the worst polluting on the planet.
qubitly 2y ago
Funny how we're constantly pushed to recycle, cut water usage, and drive less to save the planet, while the richest 1% jet around like there's no tomorrow. A progressive carbon tax might sound fair, but how do you enforce it on those who practically make the rules?
xscott 2y ago
Please look at this chart: https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector It's a few years old, but it shows that ALL of emissions from ALL air transport is less than 2%. From the article: > Musk's [...] jets responsible for 5,497 tons of CO2 over the course of a year > Bezos' two-jet fleet emitting around 2,908 tons of carbon. World wide CO2 emissions are measured in BILLIONS of tons (35-40 BILLION). I don't care if the mob breaks out the pitchforks and guillotines for the billionaires. They honestly don't seem like very nice people. However, nobody should believe that 8500 tons is a significant chunk of 35 BILLION. Look at that chart again. Get rid of all air travel, all road transport (trucking and personal), all residential and commercial energy use (air conditioning and heating), and all all iron and steel, and you've only reduced global emissions by about 40%. So we're basically back to the medieval lifestyle, and we're probably going to have a huge increase in burning firewood to stay warm, which reduces the progress. Nonsense like this article isn't useful. People like to think every little bit counts, but it doesn't. People like to think if we just slaughtered the billionaires it'll all get better, but it won't.
- nobunaga 2y ago
  Actually it would. 2% is a lot in the scheme of things. Every bit counts. And to thin it doesnt or that we need to slash only those things emitting more than X amount is a bit simplistic. Thinking we should just leave billionaies alone and let them do as they wish is nonsense.
  - xscott 2y ago
    2% is not a lot. If it takes 50 years of accumulation for things to get bad, saving 2% means it'll be bad in 51 years. And remember, that's for all of the airplanes in all of the world (tens of thousands from commercial alone). The actual savings from Bezos' and Musk's planes is something like 0.000_024 percent. So if it takes 50 years until it gets bad, it'll take about 50 years and 8 minutes after you take away their planes. Whether something counts should be done with math, not feel good sentiment or pandering to people's envy.
tirant 2y ago
This is the same Oxfam that published a report almost a year ago claiming that the 5 richest people in earth got richer than anyone else by comparing their assets value from March 18th 2020 (rock bottom level during Pandemic) to the top in November 30th 2023 (Stock Market ATH) and shifting those 5 people in 2020 to the newest 5 richest in 2023. On top of that, that cherry-picked growth was compared against a different period of time for the 60% poorest (from late 2019, before the Pandemic with stock markets still unaffected, to December 2022, with markets impacted by the hike in interest rates.) They started around 12 years ago with reports about income inequality (Chapter 1, 2012 report) and why it was a problem despite poverty rates plummeting. Even though that was also wrong as shown by Milanovic’s Elephant (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elephant_Curve https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elephant_Curve) or the Income Gini index after the year 2010. Obviously the couldn’t keep the claim and they shifted towards a new claim: wealth inequality vs income inequality. So in 2016 they shifter their claim in their report. But in 2022 wealth inequality started to shrink, including the reduction of global millionaires as published by Credit Suisse/UBS (Oxfam source) so they published a completely dishonest report, the one I mention in my first paragraph. Oxfam has clearly anti-capitalist goals and drives them by publishing extremely sensationalistic and completely manipulated reports to shape public opinion. That’s why I would advise anyone to read the report directly and to be extremely cautious with their claims. I won’t comment on this report yet as I need time to do a proper reading, but never take Oxfam headlines as real data, they are always extremely biased.
underseacables 2y ago
Musk, Bezos, Taylor Swift, Mark Cuban, they all use more carbon as a person than any regular person in the world. Yet it's the people that are demanded to change for climate change, not the wealthy, which I find to be gross hypocrisy.
- matthewfelgate 2y ago
  Musk has replaced 5 Million cars on our roads with electric cars. Also he has installed five hundred thousand solar panels.
- therealdrag0 2y ago
  The people outnumber billionaires so much they have to change or it makes no difference.
normalaccess 2y ago
[flagged]
matthewfelgate 2y ago
Musk has contributed to replacing 5 million gasoline-powered cars with electric ones and has facilitated the installation of 500,000 solar panels via Solar City. While there may be valid criticisms of Musk, questioning his environmental impact seems a bit misplaced to me.
readthenotes1 2y ago
Hey--if the wealthy can fly private jets to a resort for a public shaming-of-others orgy, not sure why a few others can't fly around while skipping the blaming

65 points by rntn 2y ago

> Of the 50 billionaires studied, around 40 percent of their investments were in high-polluting industries like oil, mining, and shipping, with few having significant renewable energy investments. That means the average billionaire's investment portfolio is responsible for 340 times the emissions of private jets and yachts - combined. It doesn't make sense to tally someone's investments as them polluting. If they sell half their investment, the pollution emissions on earth don't go down. Oxfam just lost its credibility with me.

CalRobert 2y ago
In isolation, yes, but combined with divestment or investment via etf’s like VOTE it may be meaningful at some point.
bpfrh 2y ago
>It doesn't make sense to tally someone's investments as them polluting. If they sell half their investment, the pollution emissions on earth don't go down. No but your income depends on pollution happening and you investing in X company enables that company to raise cash to keep on polluting or in worst case start polluting.
- ivewonyoung 2y ago
  The demand does not go down, so someone else will step in to cash in. If all social media companies decided to shut down tomorrow because it's harmful to society, how many people on HN would be willing to launch their own to cash in? Probably almost everyone.
nobunaga 2y ago
What a silly take. Of course it wouldnt change things in an instant but i twould long term. So if everyone divested from fossil fuel companies, tanking their stock price, and redirected that cash to renewable energy companies, you are saying no impact would happen in the long term? I beg to differ. It would force these companies to actually change their long term strategies so that investors continue to provide cash to them. Dont worry, Oxfam doesnt need your simplistic views and support based on your own simplistic analysis.
fazeirony 2y ago
not really. one's investments will contribute to the companies' access to money which is then used in their businesses...to further pollute. whilst you are correct when one investor pulls out it doesn't reduce carbon emissions, you do have agency where you invest. for these people [those that choose to invest in companies that have poor environmental track records], their investments absolutely are perpetuating the problem.
nicce 2y ago
> It doesn't make sense to tally someone's investments as them polluting. If they sell half their investment, the pollution emissions on earth don't go down. Of course it makes. As long as someone keeps investing on things regardless of how much they pollute, the pollution will keep happening. People look for billionaires and see how they do invest. They think it is okay and good to invest for same things too, in order to make money. And pollution never ends.
frereubu 2y ago
They don't personally need the money from their investments any more given they have almost unimaginable amounts of it. However, if they collectively invested that wealth into realistic renewable energy companies / projects they could significantly shift the incentives of polluting energy companies. BP et al aren't going to take renewables seriously out of the goodness of their hearts (nor should they) so we have to create the economic environment in which they are incentivised to do that.
- themaninthedark 2y ago
  The ridiculous amounts of money they have are their investments. Hasn't Musk done exactly what you are demanding of him with Tesla and what ever his solar company is?
  - frereubu 2y ago
    > The ridiculous amounts of money they have are their investments. C'mon, you know what I mean. I bet there are plenty of non-polluting investments that they hold too. They're not suddenly going to become bankrupt because of investing in renewable energy. Maybe they'd be able to afford one less yacht or private jet, but I presume that, like me, you don't really care about that either. > Hasn't Musk done exactly what you are demanding of him with Tesla and what ever his solar company is? To some extent, yes. Much as I despise Musk as a person he's done a huge amount for electric cars at least. I haven't heard anything about the solar company recently, and the last I heard it was languishing very far down in the list of Tesla priorities. Tesla home batteries seem to be pretty ubiquitous though. But we're also talking about personal emissions here, and he hasn't invented an electric jet yet. The point is that we need to radically reduce emissions, and me personally insulating my house doesn't make a blind bit of difference if those at the top of the pile don't make significant changes themselves.
themaninthedark 2y ago
I would agree, especially since they are calling out Musk and Bezos by name but don't name a single other person. I don't see Bill Gates, Al Gore or Taylor Swift being called out. IIRC the last time there a summit happened in Egypt someone put together a list of all those who flew in private jets and the reaction was to start masking the passenger manifests for "security".
- frereubu 2y ago
  Yeah, while I generally agree with the direction of the article, not including someone like Taylor Swift make the argument too easy to dismiss.
serallak 2y ago
> shipping This is the odd one here. Sure, shipping/transportation as it is is highly polluting. But it's not something from which we as a civilization can opt out. We have to figure out how to reduce the impact, but having less of shipping is a non starter.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- shantara 2y ago
  A significant portion of the global shipping [1] is the transportation of fossil fuels, so a general transition to renewables would contribute to reducing that. [1] 40% according to https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelbarnard/2023/12/05/how-will-climate-action-change-the-face-of-global-shipping/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelbarnard/2023/12/05/how-w...
ggu7hgfk8j 2y ago
It really seems like scapegoating. Most of us want to live in a world with shipping and mining. They invest with our permission and encouragement. We have to take responsibility for that choice.

mathverse 2y ago

We are headed towards the future of what "Snowpiercer" depicts if we dont tackle this.

cies 2y ago
Based on what you come to this conclusion? Scientific consensus reached after removing all the dissenting voices? Sorry, but I cannot take this kind of scientific consensus serious: we need scientists to be able to openly object, or it becomes junk science. For example the "safe and effective" consensus we saw recently, that turned out to be total junk-science. And we have not yet faced the terrible consequences of that junk-science: on a societal level (MSM, most govt agencies) we just act as if it did not happen.
- piva00 2y ago
  > For example the "safe and effective" consensus we saw recently, that turned out to be total junk-science. I don't understand this example, what are you referring to? And what was the total junk-science?
  - cies 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - piva00 2y ago
      I don't see any literature showing myocarditis through the roof, can you share some sources? As far as I can remember the sources I've read after 2 years of the vaccines rollout showed a small risk of temporary myocarditis in a very small cohort. The shots were quite effective at curbing spread by lowering the time people shed the virus, and also substantially lowering mortality among infected. If that's ineffective I think... You had the wrong expectations? I'd really appreciate sources for your extraordinary claims.
      - cies 2y ago

melling 2y ago

[flagged]

FuturisticGoat 2y ago
[dead]
andy_ppp 2y ago
I would argue that having billionaires is pretty unnecessary for economies to function well. Accumulation of more money than can be spent in a thousand lifetimes is not a social good. Tax them as much as a high rate tax payer (at least) and don't let them do dodgy tricks to avoid capital gains and inheritance taxes!
- melling 2y ago
  We’re talking about climate change. Try to stay on topic. If all the billionaires disappeared today, climate change would not be delayed by one day.
- b3lvedere 2y ago
  I doubt we will ever tax the ultra-rich as they should be taxed.
- matthewfelgate 2y ago
  Isn't this what the Soviet Union tried to do?
  - talldayo 2y ago
    It was one of the goals, specifically in the form of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" that prevents non-working social classes from engaging in politics. That would later evolve into a "state of the whole people" once it was perceived that class struggle had been eliminated. If you look at how Russia failed to modernize as a republic though, you could argue the current oligarchy is significantly more dangerous for the state and it's people. When the Soviet Union collapsed and Russia started migrating to a free market economy, the government deeply subsidized entrepreneurs in an attempt to stimulate their economy into competition. It would end up being one of the major contributing factors of their economic collapse, and persists today as a toxic link between business and politics that should have never been forged in the first place. Russian oligarchs put out mob hits on polticians - politicians send secret police to kill their opposition. It's about as potent an example of political corruption that exists in a so-called "democracy" today. I feel like you can see very clear echoes of this in America's modern economic strategy, the same sort of hubris from both Democrats and Republicans. America thought it would be smart to subsidize Elon Musk for sub-$25,000 cars he had no intention of ever making. Meanwhile, Elon is meeting with foreign dignitaries and shipping American jobs abroad to save his company instead of delivering on his promises. Elon must rather envy the violence and lawlessness of Russian economics.

mrob 2y ago

Like all externalities, the solution isn't social shaming, it's taxation. We need to introduce a carbon tax, and tariffs on trade with countries that don't enforce an equivalent tax. I suggest this tax income be distributed equally among all citizens, so that it functions as compensation paid from those who emit more than their fair share to those who emit less. I see no problem with billionaires emitting enormous quantities of CO2 so long as they pay for it. Wealth needs to have some privileges for capitalism to function correctly, and capitalism (with the state doing its duty to regulate market failures) is the best economic system we have.

JoshTriplett 2y ago
Agreed on taxing externalities, but rather than being used for redistribution, it should be used to fund carbon cleanup. I wonder if we could achieve the same net effect by allowing the carbon tax to be either negative or positive, paying people to produce net-negative CO2, so that it's possible to compete on who can do so most efficiently.
chasd00 2y ago
> I suggest this tax income be distributed equally among all citizens Why not just cut out the middle man and let us all keep what little income we have vs yet another tax. Everyone gets taxed right? Or do you mean tax for thee none for me?
- mrob 2y ago
  Because that wouldn't have the desired effect of incentivizing reduction in CO2 emissions. The alternative is privately owned air and class action lawsuits at unprecedented scale.
- fallingsquirrel 2y ago
  > Everyone gets taxed right? Yes, but your personal tax of $0.03 would be deducted from your $17 redistribution of Jeff Bezos's tax, so don't worry about getting yours, you'll still come out ahead.
- kavenkanum 2y ago

grouchomarx 2y ago

SpaceX Falcon Heavy at launch emits more carbon dioxide in two minutes than a car would in two centuries

ndr 2y ago
Should we offset what each Tesla saves compared to non electric cars?
- thagb 2y ago
  What are the numbers? How much energy goes into extracting rare earth materials, recycling batteries etc.? How is the electricity generated? How much is lost in transit and battery efficiency? What do the servers use that the Tesla communicates with behind the owner's back? These are real questions. I find it hard to get a comprehensive and unbiased analysis.
  - ivewonyoung 2y ago
    Covered at https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths
ivewonyoung 2y ago
It makes more sense to electrify 500 cars and switch electric production to clean energy rather than banning SpaceX Falcon Heavy. Because China electrifies cars and is developing competing rockets for space supremacy. I think it makes more sense to solve pollution with systemic solutions rather than play a blame game. Just tax private jet usage and use that money to decarbonize or something.
- grouchomarx 2y ago
  No issues with space flight or falcon heavy specifically. My gripe is with oil and large interests campaigning against my "personal carbon footprint" while themselves polluting more than any of us can comprehend

lordswork 2y ago

We need a progressive carbon tax. They should be covering their emissions plus that of many others. Even they are in favor of this.

al_borland 2y ago
How would this be any different than someone buying carbon offsets, which are mostly a scam. The person buying them gets to feel superior, someone else gets a lot of money for effectively doing nothing, and the the environment suffers just the same.
- tonyedgecombe 2y ago
  Carbon taxes are effective, unlike offsets.
- schnitzelstoat 2y ago
  The money raised could be spent on non-carbon technologies or mitigation strategies. Plus as the cost of emitting carbon rises, people will search for alternatives. I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea, but if we want to go for the transition we need to do so wholeheartedly, not punishing poorer people with tariffs that keep EV's unaffordable because it helps some lobby groups.
  - spwa4 2y ago
    Could be - but isn't. > ... as the cost of emitting carbon rises, people will search for alternatives ... The only alternative for most poorer individuals is the power grid and while it is more convenient it is nowhere close to carbon based fuels in price. So it is used for small things, and for heating carbon based fuels are used. And, perhaps ironically, the grid is becoming on a per-person/per-customer basis more expensive because the people who traditionally pay the bill, large, industrial users, have by far the easiest time and the most to gain switching to solar.
    - therealdrag0 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

cies 2y ago

Capitalism needs fossils. It's how profits are amplified. Without govt intervention this will not change. Getting consumers to be carbon-police them selves is a diversion tactic: it makes no significant difference.

mrob 2y ago
Capitalism need energy. It doesn't have to be fossil fuels. If we'd had the good sense to ramp up nuclear power several decades ago then we wouldn't be in this predicament.
- cies 2y ago
  Access to energy is a huge part of it. Fuel, to this day, is the easiest way to distribute energy. Industry is still heavily dependent on fossils. We have not managed to decouple from fossils: heavy industry, shipping, airports, ... There could be a scenario where the energy source is not fossils: but so far it's not in sight.
matthewfelgate 2y ago
Communist countries are some of the worst polluting on the planet.

qubitly 2y ago

Funny how we're constantly pushed to recycle, cut water usage, and drive less to save the planet, while the richest 1% jet around like there's no tomorrow. A progressive carbon tax might sound fair, but how do you enforce it on those who practically make the rules?

xscott 2y ago

Please look at this chart: https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector It's a few years old, but it shows that ALL of emissions from ALL air transport is less than 2%. From the article: > Musk's [...] jets responsible for 5,497 tons of CO2 over the course of a year > Bezos' two-jet fleet emitting around 2,908 tons of carbon. World wide CO2 emissions are measured in BILLIONS of tons (35-40 BILLION). I don't care if the mob breaks out the pitchforks and guillotines for the billionaires. They honestly don't seem like very nice people. However, nobody should believe that 8500 tons is a significant chunk of 35 BILLION. Look at that chart again. Get rid of all air travel, all road transport (trucking and personal), all residential and commercial energy use (air conditioning and heating), and all all iron and steel, and you've only reduced global emissions by about 40%. So we're basically back to the medieval lifestyle, and we're probably going to have a huge increase in burning firewood to stay warm, which reduces the progress. Nonsense like this article isn't useful. People like to think every little bit counts, but it doesn't. People like to think if we just slaughtered the billionaires it'll all get better, but it won't.

nobunaga 2y ago
Actually it would. 2% is a lot in the scheme of things. Every bit counts. And to thin it doesnt or that we need to slash only those things emitting more than X amount is a bit simplistic. Thinking we should just leave billionaies alone and let them do as they wish is nonsense.
- xscott 2y ago
  2% is not a lot. If it takes 50 years of accumulation for things to get bad, saving 2% means it'll be bad in 51 years. And remember, that's for all of the airplanes in all of the world (tens of thousands from commercial alone). The actual savings from Bezos' and Musk's planes is something like 0.000_024 percent. So if it takes 50 years until it gets bad, it'll take about 50 years and 8 minutes after you take away their planes. Whether something counts should be done with math, not feel good sentiment or pandering to people's envy.

tirant 2y ago

This is the same Oxfam that published a report almost a year ago claiming that the 5 richest people in earth got richer than anyone else by comparing their assets value from March 18th 2020 (rock bottom level during Pandemic) to the top in November 30th 2023 (Stock Market ATH) and shifting those 5 people in 2020 to the newest 5 richest in 2023. On top of that, that cherry-picked growth was compared against a different period of time for the 60% poorest (from late 2019, before the Pandemic with stock markets still unaffected, to December 2022, with markets impacted by the hike in interest rates.) They started around 12 years ago with reports about income inequality (Chapter 1, 2012 report) and why it was a problem despite poverty rates plummeting. Even though that was also wrong as shown by Milanovic’s Elephant (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elephant_Curve https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elephant_Curve) or the Income Gini index after the year 2010. Obviously the couldn’t keep the claim and they shifted towards a new claim: wealth inequality vs income inequality. So in 2016 they shifter their claim in their report. But in 2022 wealth inequality started to shrink, including the reduction of global millionaires as published by Credit Suisse/UBS (Oxfam source) so they published a completely dishonest report, the one I mention in my first paragraph. Oxfam has clearly anti-capitalist goals and drives them by publishing extremely sensationalistic and completely manipulated reports to shape public opinion. That’s why I would advise anyone to read the report directly and to be extremely cautious with their claims. I won’t comment on this report yet as I need time to do a proper reading, but never take Oxfam headlines as real data, they are always extremely biased.

underseacables 2y ago

Musk, Bezos, Taylor Swift, Mark Cuban, they all use more carbon as a person than any regular person in the world. Yet it's the people that are demanded to change for climate change, not the wealthy, which I find to be gross hypocrisy.

matthewfelgate 2y ago
Musk has replaced 5 Million cars on our roads with electric cars. Also he has installed five hundred thousand solar panels.
therealdrag0 2y ago
The people outnumber billionaires so much they have to change or it makes no difference.

normalaccess 2y ago

[flagged]

matthewfelgate 2y ago

Musk has contributed to replacing 5 million gasoline-powered cars with electric ones and has facilitated the installation of 500,000 solar panels via Solar City. While there may be valid criticisms of Musk, questioning his environmental impact seems a bit misplaced to me.

readthenotes1 2y ago

Hey--if the wealthy can fly private jets to a resort for a public shaming-of-others orgy, not sure why a few others can't fly around while skipping the blaming