Rich People Are the Big Barrier to Stabilizing the Climate
Efforts to curb climate change are failing. That’s partly due to the staggering contributions of the global elite.
They're the biggest barrier to pretty much every political and economical issue we've got about now.
Just sharpening this pitchfork here, wondering when we’re gonna start eating the rich…
Be the change you want to see in the world or whatever
Sharpening a pitchfork? Man I'm to poor for that and have just been sharpening my teeth through my anxiety grinding.
People really do forget we are just animals with pretty good control.
Rich people would be regulated and taxed... if not for the protection of conservatives.
If you aren't fighting conservatism, you aren't fighting climate change.
Those that benefit from corruption are unlikely to pass laws that inhibit their own ability to benefit from corruption.
Replace conservatives with "government corruption" and regulatory capture and you'd be more accurate.
It takes more than just bunch of geriatric politicians to corrupt the entire state and federal governments so completely.
Amazon, Nestle, (any weapons manufacturers), etc. those are the ones in control.
And they DO pay "taxes". Trillions of dollars in tax. They're just not paying taxes to the governments in the way we want/think.
Amazon execs are probably constantly looking for ways to reduce the amount they need to spend to control governments.
Think about who benefits most from a non functional government and regulations
Rich people would be regulated and taxed… if not for the protection of conservatives.
Lol! No.
Lol. No. Back at you
For non-clickers.
He posted a tinfoil youtube video about how Billionaires supposedly prefer Democrats
I posted proof he was full of shit, to the tune of 75% of Billionaires donating Republican and (despite the single biggest donor being George Soros to Democrats) 75% of billionaire donations going to Republicans.
Real fact is, 6 top billionaires favor Democrats. The other 14 favor Republicans.
30 minutes on YouTube isn't going to change the reality of our eyes.
I think it's worth noting that being counted among the "rich people" (defined by the article as the world's top 10% by income or wealth) starts at a number a lot lower than most Americans (or Westerners in general) might realize: $122,100/year measured by income, or $771,300 measured by net worth. (Source: World Inequality Report 2022, page 9.) In fact, even that second figure might be (vastly) overstated, because another paper I found claims that it only takes $138,346 net worth to be in the top 10%, and $1,146,685 gets you into the top 1%! (Source: Credit Suisse Research Institute Global Wealth Report 2022, page 22.)
In other words, a Hell of a lot of those global rich people are Americans who are deluding themselves to think they're middle-class and not part of the problem. We're not talking about just Musk and Bezos and shit; we're talking about you and me. Literally, in fact: at least according to the Credit Suisse definition, I myself am one of the rich people @z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml wants to eat!
I also think you overestimate how many western people are rich by this standard. For example, nobody I know would be part of the 10% here by that income, and I live in Norway.
And really, you really don't need more than that to live a good and luxurious life. In fact I think you don't even need to be anywhere close to that, even. Especially if you implement some actual rent controls, lower incomes are plenty fine.
I also think you overestimate how many western people are rich by this standard.
Still, many might be surprised at how many people they know or encounter who are rich by this standard. In a globally wealthy country, in the areas generally wealthy, you’re going to find “rich” people all over the place.
I also think you overestimate how many western people are rich by this standard. For example, nobody I know would be part of the 10% here by that income, and I live in Norway.
Sorry, I guess I subconsciously decided to err high when discussing somebody else's wealth/success out of politeness, but I now realize this context is the exception!
As an American, I don't think I'm underestimating how many Americans are rich by this standard, however. Heck, even most of us who don't meet it still live the same kind of suburban, car-centric lifestyle as if we did. The people around you might not be the problem, but the people around me sure as fuck are!
And really, you really don’t need more than that to live a good and luxurious life. In fact I think you don’t even need to be anywhere close to that, even. Especially if you implement some actual rent controls, lower incomes are plenty fine.
100% agreed. I don't want to absolve myself of my culpability as part of the problem (or undermine my thesis that most Americans don't realize how much of a part of the problem they are, for that matter), but I have to admit that I try to live an abnormally frugal (and therefore possibly lower-carbon) lifestyle, and I'm very satisfied with it. I own a single-family house, but it's a relatively-small one in a streetcar suburb. I own too many cars (mostly old project cars), but I put very few miles on them because my wife and I both bicycle for almost all commuting and errands. My family lives comfortably on spending that's not too far above the federal poverty level, which means we do a lot of cooking instead of eating out and get a lot of our durable goods used instead of new. (Side note: it's crazy what some of the folks around here throw out: I've got a giant, 8' tall, solid-wood, built-in hutch in my dining room that I found on the side of the road! Luckily, I own a utility trailer -- which was also given to me for free -- or I'd have never gotten it home.) Finally, although my income is typically quite a bit higher -- we aim for a very high savings rate -- it's never been so high as to come anywhere near the "global 10% income" I cited earlier.
Anyway, point is: although I'm desperately trying not to be so naive as to think I'm the exception to my own claim about who's part of the problem, I do think I have a perspective that gives me a better understanding than most about what lifestyle changes are needed to solve it and how they're not as hard as people think.
This graph seems to suggest the average income for Norwegians is around US$110k. That's pretty close to the global top 10% threshold of US$122k.
I'm unsure if that data is accurate, but if it is, I'm assuming you don't live in a capital/major city where things tend to cost more and hence average jobs get paid slightly more? The contrast between city and rural salaries / cost of living is pretty stark where I am.
A $122,100/year is well above the median income of any country. For the US median income is $46,625/year. So more then half of Americans are not part of the richest 10%. That is even more true for Europe, where incomes tend to be lower.
For the US median income is $46,625/year. So more then half of Americans are not part of the richest 10%
While true, $46,625 is still the top 32%. Which suggests that the average American will still have to make some lifestyle cuts. Even though they're already exploited hard by their ruling class.
$30k, the entry level salary for US restaurant workers, is the 50% mark. So basically, every full-time working US adult is in the top 50% richest globally by income. Their exorbitant medical and student debts make that not feel anything like how being rich is portrayed, even if they are technically richer when measured by income alone.
You know things are fucked when most of the richest people in the world are struggling to put a roof over their head and pay for essentials.
There were two possible definitions to go by: income or net worth. Look how low the net worth figure is (especially the one from the Credit Suisse study).
Keep in mind that even a $1M net worth -- more than either the Credit Suisse or World Inequality Report measure -- is considered on the low side in terms of retirement savings by age 65. (At a 4% safe withdrawal rate, it only gets you $40k/year to live on.)
So your saying I'm both a class traitor and powerless? Fuckin fantastic.
Kinda sounds like you're rich. I'm definitely not.
Wanna help? I can probably make an amount of money that you barely sneeze at go absurdly far.
You mean my two massive SUVs I drive everywhere, energy inefficient McMansion, and 50,000 toys I buy my children is causing climate change!? But China!!
Soy you could be solid middle class and be really good at saving, or a lower middle class that has saved for retirement and a paid off home and easily fall into the “net worth” category of “rich.”
I too am one of the rich people 😓
If you're on >$100k you're middle class.
Just because you've spunked it all away on a giant mortgage and payments on a $70k car, you can always just downsize that away, move to a dump and live like a king.
King of the dump, but still a king.
I don't believe I stuttered... Please slather yourself in a fine wine reduction and wait for me by a nice bottle of Chianti.
😳
As a poor person living on disability in America, I absolutely agree. If you're making $100k, you're fucking rich, and if you're making half that I'm still gonna be keeping and eye on you.
I'd bloody love to be earning half that 😂 at least I know now that I'm not in the 1%.
Bring out the guillotine I guess!
So, the study theyre citing is pretty flawed. It starts with an assumption that emissions strictly correlate with income, it doesnt actually break down or analyze emissions sources. It just takes the total emissions of a country and divides that up by income. Its economic analysis. But that's not how emissions work. A million dollar car isnt gonna emit 100 times more than a 10k car. The cows for their wagyu steaks arent producing more methane than cows ending up at Mcdonalds.
The wealthy absolutely emit more through flights and boats. Someone with a private jet is likely emitting hundreds of times more emissions than a regular person. But theres not that many private jets. Ban all private jets, but it wont even register on global emissions totals.
There's a ton of academic research showing the correlation between income and emissions.
There are also a ton of actions which are necessary to get to zero emissions but not sufficient. Banning private jets is one.
Banning private jets is so far down the long-tail of emissions-lowering strategies that it's barely even worth considering. Heck, it might even be bad to consider it because doing so might serve to distract from the things we actually need to do.
The problem isn't just billionaire-level income correlated with billionaire-level emissions; the problem is American middle-class-level income correlated with American middle-class-level emissions, too! We -- typical, normal Americans -- are the global rich people the article's talking about. The "big barrier to stabilizing the climate" isn't the robber-baron who doesn't want to give up his private jet; it's the suburban soccer mom who doesn't want to trade her minivan crossover SUV for a cargo bike.
No, the study's methodology is fine. Although you're correct to point out that the million-dollar car doesn't pollute much more than the $10K car and the wagyu cow doesn't fart more than the McDonald's-destined cow, what you don't realize is that it really is even the $10K car and the McDonalds cow that are the problem! We're not just talking about billionaires here; we're talking about the global 10%, which starts at surprisingly low income or net worth and includes most "middle-class" Americans!
You are part of the problem. I am part of the problem. It's not just Bezos and shit who need to change; it's us.
Mostly it is bigger houses, driving bigger cars, flying more to vacations and well buying more in general. We are talking about thte top 10% globally here. They are not crazy billionaires and most do not own private jets or boats.
TL;DR: eating one rich a day keeps climate change away.
Here's the beautiful part, there can still be "rich" people. We just need to tighten the gap. Being rich should mean you can buy what you want right now and not have to save. Being poor should be that you have to save an extra paycheck to get what you want after food shelter and other luxuries are paid for. That's it. Close the gap. How? By eating the rich. Boom!
Guillotines, you say?
I used to be a tradie. They absolutely are..
Many of them are doing stupid things like building massive concrete homes only 4 people live in, own MANY cars, and we even came across genuinely stupid nonsense like massive firepits in the middle of swimming pools (which aren't there for warmth, and literally just burn petrol to look impressive).
https://platinumpools.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Shapiro00001-e1537458417223.jpg
Holy shit. If I fuck over the NPCs around me, I too could pretend to be a pharaoh!
No shit Sherlock
Edit: that's directed to the writer not op.
Round them all up and throw them into the salt mines. Problem solved.
Mmm...delicious delicious rich...
EAT THE RICH!
And that’s why this planet is fucking done. Or at least, humanities time on it is soon at hand.
We deserve to be annihilated, earth deserves better
Well, not every person out there do questionable actions (just) to get rich.
I am also happy that we are getting more and more environment-helping services.
.
I as well as some other "insignificant" individuals still try to carry some light into the darkness, but it may be futile when compared to all the wrong-doings some people create...but I won't give up, nevertheless. I'll carry on, trying.
"Remember this: Try."
If only those little single celled organisms had just given up because it was too hard we could have avoided this whole existence thing. Real selfish bastards if we're being real
and the economic.
It's not just them, governments are also a huge fucking problem on their own even without being puppet theaters for the rich.
Shocking revelation...
The biggest problem that we can realistically overcome is the lifestyle we have all been accustomed to, which is only going to get worse as global conflicts continue to ramp up. The pandemic was a hint, a minor preparation for it, and the results weren't thrilling. Trying to deal with the rich would be more plausible if the outcome, the destabilization of the society they've intertwined with, wasn't so certain.
