8 ms·

Billionaires emit more CO₂ in 90 minutes than most people do in a lifetime

kylehotchkiss 2y ago
> Reduce the emissions of the richest. Governments must introduce permanent income and wealth taxes on the top 1 percent, ban or punitively tax carbon-intensive luxury consumptions —starting with private jets and superyachts— and regulate corporations and investors to drastically and fairly reduce their emissions. If europeans are so upset about the emission of American private jets and yachts, don't grant landing/overflight/docking permissions then? Most of that fuel would be used crossing the Atlantic. Build a few more nice airplane first class suites in the EU airlines so the billionaires can still travel with their comforts?
- fxtentacle 2y ago
  My reading of the article was that African&Asian countries are upset because they 1. suffer the most from global warming and 2. currently aren't in any position to negotiate or enforce their rights Relevant quotes: "Counting dead bodies after a typhoon isn’t something any child should have to do." "Rich countries have failed to keep their $100 billion climate finance promise" "Rich countries continue to resist calls for climate reparations."
  - ta20240528 2y ago
    Is a citizen of a an African/Asian country, we're just pissed we can't live like the G7 folk do. Nothing more. You only have to observe how we behave once we get residence in EU/America/Australia and how quickly we forget our compatriots left behind. Don't fall for this faux outrage.
    - PikachuEXE 2y ago
      I remember listening to `Climate Justice | James Lindsay & Michael O'Fallon | Changing Tides Ep. 1` talking about this https://youtu.be/1A8oyO9LoOo?list=PLZJe-MWy0cYc6g4XGnbAdenV423j9lbYQ https://youtu.be/1A8oyO9LoOo?list=PLZJe-MWy0cYc6g4XGnbAdenV4...
    - tumsfestival 2y ago
      You're cherry-picking and generalizing an entire population based on anecdotal evidence. Sounds like you're projecting.
- skhunted 2y ago
  That would help. A better way of tackling the issue is: Governments must introduce permanent income and wealth taxes on the top 1 percent, ban or punitively tax carbon-intensive luxury consumptions —starting with private jets and superyachts— and regulate corporations and investors to drastically and fairly reduce their emissions.
  - Synaesthesia 2y ago
    This would probably require some kind of revolution to achieve. But yes, basically that's what we need for rationality.
- freilanzer 2y ago
  > If europeans are so upset about the emission of American private jets and yachts, Americans should be, too.
fxtentacle 2y ago
Their main demand seems pretty reasonable to me: "ban or punitively tax carbon-intensive luxury consumptions — starting with private jets and superyachts"
- Arnt 2y ago
  The problem is that it doesn't matter. Most of that those giant emissions are your daily commute etc. The aren't enough private jets to really make a dent compared to all the middle-class car drivers. Merely being a reasonable demand isn't enough to get a law or treaty. A good intention won't be enough, a likely significant effect is politically necessary.
  - olivergregory 2y ago
    It's not about the effectiveness: it's about the message.
    - jaredklewis 2y ago
      Wow. So instead of fighting climate change with measures that are actually effective, we’re going with ineffective measures with good “messaging?” I’m sure the millions of climate refugees in 2100 will appreciate our spot on messaging!
  - sandworm101 2y ago
    >> Most of that those giant emissions are your daily commute etc. Daily commutes, even by IC car, are not the bulk of carbon emissions. Carbon emissions from all transport are only about 1/3 of total emissions, with commutes being a subset of that. The bulk of emissions, the other 2/3, are from non-transport things like electricity and food production. Installing some solar panels and not eating meat might be more effective than avoiding the daily commute.
    - Arnt 2y ago
      Yes, and no matter how much less meat the billionaires eat, it's not going to move the needle. A treaty that is sure not to move the needle won't get signed.
pingou 2y ago
"On average, a billionaire’s investment portfolio is almost twice as polluting as an investment in the S&P 500". That is very interesting. However, I don't think their investment should really count (or at least not totally) as their own co2 emissions. If they have shares in BP or Shell for example, the emissions of those two companies should be counted towards those who buy their products, in my opinion.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  Agreed. I thought the comments about the private jets and yachts were fair, because those things emit so much carbon and solely for the pleasure/convenience of the billionaire. But throwing "investments" into the mix kind of ruined the message for me, because it's not like those companies are only servicing the billionaire.
NotGMan 2y ago
[flagged]
- magicalhippo 2y ago
  If they really need to travel then they'll pay what it costs, same as anyone else. And they have enough money to pay, as witnessed by the splurging. Heck, Musk is literally throwing millions of dollars into the wind these days.
- freilanzer 2y ago
  > Yachts are obviously the issue here, NOT private jet planes. Except they are as well, due to the volume of flights. > If a billionare would use regular airplanes he would waste tons of his time. Just like the rest of us. > You want eg Elon Musk to waste a few weeks of his life each year waiting for a plane when he could be building stuff? Yes. He does not build stuff, he pays people to build stuff. Is this you, Elon?
  - NotGMan 2y ago
    Then why aren't other people capable of doing what he is doing? How many of the people who build stuff for him would be capable of what he does? "The rest of us" don't need to travel often to check and supersives factories every day. The reality is that his time simply is worth more than yours or mine since it will result in exponentialy more products being produced than that of a single worker.
    - freilanzer 2y ago
      > Then why aren't other people capable of doing what he is doing? > How many of the people who build stuff for him would be capable of what he does? What is he doing exactly? Have an ungodly amount of money and invest it? Gee, I wonder why normal people can't do that. > The reality is that his time simply is worth more than yours or mine since it will result in exponentialy more products being produced than that of a single worker. This personality cult is tiring.
openrisk 2y ago
Some billionaires will get touched by this report and will buy a country's worth of forest to become "carbon-neutral" /s Seriously though, its not the absolute value of direct impact that matters here (or even the indirect via their investments) but the multiple negative messages that it sends to the billions of non-billionaires: - that the burden of shifting towards sustainable living will not be felt and shared fairly - that the pinnacle of "worldy success" means also not caring about your impact on the rest While countless studies have looked at corporate and consumer responsibilities at macro level, the role of individual ownership much less so. Mostly the work of Chancel and Piketty http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/ChancelPiketty2015.pdf http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/ChancelPiketty2015.pdf
somedude895 2y ago
So Oxfam is just a socialist think-tank now? These numbers make for a great headline, but they really don't mean anything. You could take every penny from every billionaire in the world today and it wouldn't really make a difference in the grand scheme of things. Millions of people being lifted from lower into middle-class is sure to be much worse for climate change. Poorer countries tend to not have the infrastructure to support a green power grid, and they generally need carbohydrates to industrialize. In many countries the top 10% of earners tend to bankroll most government spending due to progressive taxation. If that income was distributed to the bottom 90%, the lower tax brackets would lead to much lower tax revenue in advanced economies, meaning that governments have less to spend on switching to green power sources and the infrastructure to support them. But of course blaming the rich is a more comfortable truth for many, because covering up envy as a fight against injustice is killing two birds of morality with one stone.
xnx 2y ago
If you're making money, you're burning carbon (either directly or indirectly).

> Reduce the emissions of the richest. Governments must introduce permanent income and wealth taxes on the top 1 percent, ban or punitively tax carbon-intensive luxury consumptions —starting with private jets and superyachts— and regulate corporations and investors to drastically and fairly reduce their emissions. If europeans are so upset about the emission of American private jets and yachts, don't grant landing/overflight/docking permissions then? Most of that fuel would be used crossing the Atlantic. Build a few more nice airplane first class suites in the EU airlines so the billionaires can still travel with their comforts?

fxtentacle 2y ago
My reading of the article was that African&Asian countries are upset because they 1. suffer the most from global warming and 2. currently aren't in any position to negotiate or enforce their rights Relevant quotes: "Counting dead bodies after a typhoon isn’t something any child should have to do." "Rich countries have failed to keep their $100 billion climate finance promise" "Rich countries continue to resist calls for climate reparations."
- ta20240528 2y ago
  Is a citizen of a an African/Asian country, we're just pissed we can't live like the G7 folk do. Nothing more. You only have to observe how we behave once we get residence in EU/America/Australia and how quickly we forget our compatriots left behind. Don't fall for this faux outrage.
  - PikachuEXE 2y ago
    I remember listening to `Climate Justice | James Lindsay & Michael O'Fallon | Changing Tides Ep. 1` talking about this https://youtu.be/1A8oyO9LoOo?list=PLZJe-MWy0cYc6g4XGnbAdenV423j9lbYQ https://youtu.be/1A8oyO9LoOo?list=PLZJe-MWy0cYc6g4XGnbAdenV4...
  - tumsfestival 2y ago
    You're cherry-picking and generalizing an entire population based on anecdotal evidence. Sounds like you're projecting.
skhunted 2y ago
That would help. A better way of tackling the issue is: Governments must introduce permanent income and wealth taxes on the top 1 percent, ban or punitively tax carbon-intensive luxury consumptions —starting with private jets and superyachts— and regulate corporations and investors to drastically and fairly reduce their emissions.
- Synaesthesia 2y ago
  This would probably require some kind of revolution to achieve. But yes, basically that's what we need for rationality.
freilanzer 2y ago
> If europeans are so upset about the emission of American private jets and yachts, Americans should be, too.

fxtentacle 2y ago

Their main demand seems pretty reasonable to me: "ban or punitively tax carbon-intensive luxury consumptions — starting with private jets and superyachts"

Arnt 2y ago
The problem is that it doesn't matter. Most of that those giant emissions are your daily commute etc. The aren't enough private jets to really make a dent compared to all the middle-class car drivers. Merely being a reasonable demand isn't enough to get a law or treaty. A good intention won't be enough, a likely significant effect is politically necessary.
- olivergregory 2y ago
  It's not about the effectiveness: it's about the message.
  - jaredklewis 2y ago
    Wow. So instead of fighting climate change with measures that are actually effective, we’re going with ineffective measures with good “messaging?” I’m sure the millions of climate refugees in 2100 will appreciate our spot on messaging!
- sandworm101 2y ago
  >> Most of that those giant emissions are your daily commute etc. Daily commutes, even by IC car, are not the bulk of carbon emissions. Carbon emissions from all transport are only about 1/3 of total emissions, with commutes being a subset of that. The bulk of emissions, the other 2/3, are from non-transport things like electricity and food production. Installing some solar panels and not eating meat might be more effective than avoiding the daily commute.
  - Arnt 2y ago
    Yes, and no matter how much less meat the billionaires eat, it's not going to move the needle. A treaty that is sure not to move the needle won't get signed.

pingou 2y ago

"On average, a billionaire’s investment portfolio is almost twice as polluting as an investment in the S&P 500". That is very interesting. However, I don't think their investment should really count (or at least not totally) as their own co2 emissions. If they have shares in BP or Shell for example, the emissions of those two companies should be counted towards those who buy their products, in my opinion.

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
Agreed. I thought the comments about the private jets and yachts were fair, because those things emit so much carbon and solely for the pleasure/convenience of the billionaire. But throwing "investments" into the mix kind of ruined the message for me, because it's not like those companies are only servicing the billionaire.

NotGMan 2y ago

[flagged]

magicalhippo 2y ago
If they really need to travel then they'll pay what it costs, same as anyone else. And they have enough money to pay, as witnessed by the splurging. Heck, Musk is literally throwing millions of dollars into the wind these days.
freilanzer 2y ago
> Yachts are obviously the issue here, NOT private jet planes. Except they are as well, due to the volume of flights. > If a billionare would use regular airplanes he would waste tons of his time. Just like the rest of us. > You want eg Elon Musk to waste a few weeks of his life each year waiting for a plane when he could be building stuff? Yes. He does not build stuff, he pays people to build stuff. Is this you, Elon?
- NotGMan 2y ago
  Then why aren't other people capable of doing what he is doing? How many of the people who build stuff for him would be capable of what he does? "The rest of us" don't need to travel often to check and supersives factories every day. The reality is that his time simply is worth more than yours or mine since it will result in exponentialy more products being produced than that of a single worker.
  - freilanzer 2y ago
    > Then why aren't other people capable of doing what he is doing? > How many of the people who build stuff for him would be capable of what he does? What is he doing exactly? Have an ungodly amount of money and invest it? Gee, I wonder why normal people can't do that. > The reality is that his time simply is worth more than yours or mine since it will result in exponentialy more products being produced than that of a single worker. This personality cult is tiring.

openrisk 2y ago

Some billionaires will get touched by this report and will buy a country's worth of forest to become "carbon-neutral" /s Seriously though, its not the absolute value of direct impact that matters here (or even the indirect via their investments) but the multiple negative messages that it sends to the billions of non-billionaires: - that the burden of shifting towards sustainable living will not be felt and shared fairly - that the pinnacle of "worldy success" means also not caring about your impact on the rest While countless studies have looked at corporate and consumer responsibilities at macro level, the role of individual ownership much less so. Mostly the work of Chancel and Piketty http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/ChancelPiketty2015.pdf http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/ChancelPiketty2015.pdf

somedude895 2y ago

So Oxfam is just a socialist think-tank now? These numbers make for a great headline, but they really don't mean anything. You could take every penny from every billionaire in the world today and it wouldn't really make a difference in the grand scheme of things. Millions of people being lifted from lower into middle-class is sure to be much worse for climate change. Poorer countries tend to not have the infrastructure to support a green power grid, and they generally need carbohydrates to industrialize. In many countries the top 10% of earners tend to bankroll most government spending due to progressive taxation. If that income was distributed to the bottom 90%, the lower tax brackets would lead to much lower tax revenue in advanced economies, meaning that governments have less to spend on switching to green power sources and the infrastructure to support them. But of course blaming the rich is a more comfortable truth for many, because covering up envy as a fight against injustice is killing two birds of morality with one stone.

xnx 2y ago

If you're making money, you're burning carbon (either directly or indirectly).