5 ms·

Billionaires are an insignificant rounding error in the total production of CO2 on the planet. 50 top billionaires make 1200x CO2 of the average person [1]. Con

by nomel 2y ago

Billionaires are an insignificant rounding error in the total production of CO2 on the planet. 50 top billionaires make 1200x CO2 of the average person [1]. Considering there's less than 2,200 of them (< 0.000025% of the population), that makes sense. They can could produce over twenty thousand times more than the average person while staying under a percent. They're disproportionate, but shooting them into the sun leaves us precisely where we are, to many significant digits. [1] https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/billionaires-emit-more-carbon-pollution-90-minutes-average-person-does-lifetime https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/billionaires-emit-mo...

Sabinus 2y ago
The power of invested Capital protecting itself is what delays climate change action. Billionaires have a oversized influence on the decisions of Capital, for obvious reasons. Looking at their personal co2 consumption multiplied by their number isn't the measure you should be assessing.
- OgsyedIE 2y ago
  Having done a few deep dives, more than 50% of the lobbying in the UK against green buildouts such as rail freight expansion, onshore wind and ev chargers between 2015 and 2019 was funded by oil and gas companies looking to keep their market share and disproportionately the big consolidations like Baker Hughes. I have no idea whether the ratios break down similarly elsewhere in even the anglosphere given the higher share of primary sector industry in US and Canadian gdp.
Retric 2y ago
Edit: Those pollution numbers don’t really add up to 1,200x on average. Source has Top 50 richest people produced same emissions as bottom 155 million people combined. Page 8: https://webassets.oxfamamerica.org/media/documents/bp-carbon-inequality-kills-281024-en.pdf https://webassets.oxfamamerica.org/media/documents/bp-carbon... For example individual billionaires Yachts alone represent 870x average emissions from someone globally. That’s just in operations and excludes construction.
- nomel 2y ago
  That 90 minute number includes investments, which doesn't make any sense. Do we blame the CO2 emissions of SpaceX on Elon Musk, which would be included in that, or do we blame NASA/Americans and worldwide Starlink subscribers for paying for something that has CO2 as a byproduct? It's the collective us that's the problem, not wanting to give up our standard of living. Shoot the developed countries into the sun and you save the world.
  - Retric 2y ago
    The pollution from customers shouldn’t be counted, but investments on startups involve real world resources being used. Blue Origin for example has 11,000 employees yet still depends on Jeff Bezos to keep the lights on. For years it looked a lot like an hobby, let alone all the other even less successful rocket companies. Also, Billionaires start up companies for their super yacht’s making them technically investments even if they’re only used by the billionaire themselves it makes sense from tax standpoint. When you have that kind of money the line between hobby, investment, and donation get blurry.
  - relaxing 2y ago
    > Do we blame the CO2 emissions of SpaceX on Elon Musk Of course. 100%. He started it, he could stop it. It’s not even a question. No one was asking for starlink. Humanity could have continued just fine without wireless internet in the middle of nowhere.
    - Retric 2y ago
      Except that’s not included in this calculation. Who is responsible for an early stage statue startup without customers? The people investing money, thus investment is a category of emissions.
      - relaxing 2y ago
        > Who is responsible for an early stage statue startup without customers? Still the CEO who made the choice to accept outside funding.
walrus01 2y ago
The difference is that your 'average' billionaire has effectively infinite resources to shield themselves from the repercussions of global climate change, sea level rise, strife, chaos, etc. At least as compared to your average Bangladeshi.
wqaatwt 2y ago
That seems somewhat tangential? Some people think that it would be right if the costs of slowing down climate change would be disproportionately borne by “the billionaires” (since they disproportionately benefited from economic growth and barely pay any taxes anyway). Said billionaires obviously would disagree with that due to obvious reasons..

by nomel 2y ago

Sabinus 2y ago

The power of invested Capital protecting itself is what delays climate change action. Billionaires have a oversized influence on the decisions of Capital, for obvious reasons. Looking at their personal co2 consumption multiplied by their number isn't the measure you should be assessing.

OgsyedIE 2y ago
Having done a few deep dives, more than 50% of the lobbying in the UK against green buildouts such as rail freight expansion, onshore wind and ev chargers between 2015 and 2019 was funded by oil and gas companies looking to keep their market share and disproportionately the big consolidations like Baker Hughes. I have no idea whether the ratios break down similarly elsewhere in even the anglosphere given the higher share of primary sector industry in US and Canadian gdp.

Retric 2y ago

Edit: Those pollution numbers don’t really add up to 1,200x on average. Source has Top 50 richest people produced same emissions as bottom 155 million people combined. Page 8: https://webassets.oxfamamerica.org/media/documents/bp-carbon-inequality-kills-281024-en.pdf https://webassets.oxfamamerica.org/media/documents/bp-carbon... For example individual billionaires Yachts alone represent 870x average emissions from someone globally. That’s just in operations and excludes construction.

nomel 2y ago
That 90 minute number includes investments, which doesn't make any sense. Do we blame the CO2 emissions of SpaceX on Elon Musk, which would be included in that, or do we blame NASA/Americans and worldwide Starlink subscribers for paying for something that has CO2 as a byproduct? It's the collective us that's the problem, not wanting to give up our standard of living. Shoot the developed countries into the sun and you save the world.
- Retric 2y ago
  The pollution from customers shouldn’t be counted, but investments on startups involve real world resources being used. Blue Origin for example has 11,000 employees yet still depends on Jeff Bezos to keep the lights on. For years it looked a lot like an hobby, let alone all the other even less successful rocket companies. Also, Billionaires start up companies for their super yacht’s making them technically investments even if they’re only used by the billionaire themselves it makes sense from tax standpoint. When you have that kind of money the line between hobby, investment, and donation get blurry.
- relaxing 2y ago
  > Do we blame the CO2 emissions of SpaceX on Elon Musk Of course. 100%. He started it, he could stop it. It’s not even a question. No one was asking for starlink. Humanity could have continued just fine without wireless internet in the middle of nowhere.
  - Retric 2y ago
    Except that’s not included in this calculation. Who is responsible for an early stage statue startup without customers? The people investing money, thus investment is a category of emissions.
    - relaxing 2y ago
      > Who is responsible for an early stage statue startup without customers? Still the CEO who made the choice to accept outside funding.

walrus01 2y ago

The difference is that your 'average' billionaire has effectively infinite resources to shield themselves from the repercussions of global climate change, sea level rise, strife, chaos, etc. At least as compared to your average Bangladeshi.

wqaatwt 2y ago

That seems somewhat tangential? Some people think that it would be right if the costs of slowing down climate change would be disproportionately borne by “the billionaires” (since they disproportionately benefited from economic growth and barely pay any taxes anyway). Said billionaires obviously would disagree with that due to obvious reasons..