4 ms·
You could cut the emissions of the top 1% in half, or reduce the emissions of the bottom 4 billion to 0. Same result. Which do you believe is likely the lower
by MildlySerious 1y ago
You could cut the emissions of the top 1% in half, or reduce the emissions of the bottom 4 billion to 0. Same result.
Which do you believe is likely the lower hanging fruit, has a higher return per dollar spent and is likely to be more ethical and less invasive?
So yeah. I care about per capita emissions on the grounds that things need to change fast, and adjusting the lifestyle of a few million is radically easier than wiping half the planet off the emissions map.
- IncreasePosts 1y agoYou're not actually looking at per capita emissions, you're looking at overall emissions. It isn't that the 1% to .1% are the biggest emitters, it's their emission levels multiplied by the size of the class. Billionaires aren't the 1%, they're the 0.00003%. Top 1% globally is basically anyone making more than $100k/yr. If you deleted all billionaires from existence, it would make no impact on climate change. If you deleted all 1% ers and left the billionaires, there will be a huge improvement in climate changing emissions