1y ago

America's richest 10% are responsible for 40% of its planet-heating pollution, new report finds

www.cnn.com America's richest 10% are responsible for 40% of its planet-heating pollution, new report finds | CNN Business

America’s wealthiest people are also some of the world’s biggest polluters – not only because of their massive homes and private jets, but because of the fossil fuels generated by the companies they invest their money in.

News @kbin.social

www.cnn.com /2023/08/17/business/rich-americans-climate-footprint-emissions/index.html

28 3

You're viewing a single thread.

134 comments

This is a piss poor metric. It is not what these people personally emit but what they emit by all the companies that they may own. Even though those companies produce products you and me consume.
In other words if I am a massive farmer and in the ten percent wealth category, my carbon footprint includes all the food produced and you consume from my farm.
- I feel that I see more and more articles that give the false impression that rich are the only people we should put a pressure for pollution. This will give more and more people the illusion that they can pollute because their pollution is very minor compared to the pollution of the rich.
  The reality is while richer people pollute more. The ratio of pollution between a rich and a normal person is not comparable to the ratio of the wealth difference.
  In fact, for pollution, everyone effort has a real effect.
  More precisely I read an article that made it clear that if a super rich has 100000x more money, they will pollute directly only 40x more than most people. (the number are probably wrong but the order of magnitude is correct).
  This mean that pollution is not just for the rich, but for everyone. And your personal effort count.
  
  Pollution is a truly a systemic problem, not a personal responsibility problem, even for the wealthiest heaviest polluters. It certainly doesn't help when people treat their surroundings like trashcans, but that will always pale in comparison to the scale of pollution produced by industry.
  The reason wealthy people are still the issue is that they have an insane overabundance of control over industry, governments, and economic systems, and that control is currently being wielded irresponsibly.
  The only way for non-wealthy people to truly fight climate change is collective action. The top 1% on the other hand could damn near personally begin reconstructing problematic parts of our polluting economic systems, but they simply aren't motivated to do so because that wouldn't increase their capital, at least not as much as the way they are currently behaving does. They are only motivated by increasing their wealth, apparently, based on how they behave.
  
  What is the collective but a collection of individuals? What, therefore, is collective action, but a collection of individuals choosing to take responsibility and do what they can?
  Imagine politicians and CEOs decided tomorrow to make meat production sustainable and ethical. The cost of meat would skyrocket (yes, even if we removed all corporate profit). The very next day all those individuals that aren't responsible, according to your logic, would be in the street protesting.
  
  Nothing of what you said changes that pollution is a systemic problem and the wealthiest people have disproportionate control over systems.
  We could all recycle everything and be perfect little eco-angels on an individual basis and the world would still burn unless we change how industry makes things and how much stuff industry makes.
  You are correct, if it happened like you describe, people could potentially protest against it, out of personal interest. I doubt sincerely that it is even possible to change things at the pace you've described though, and it seems like a contrived situation.
  
  Recycling is far from eco friendly or a closed loop system as you imply. It may slightly reduce the carbon footprint of consumption but it requires a great deal of energy to do so. From a GHG perspective, in many cases it is only slightly better it than manufacturing from virgin materials.
  Those pop cans and cardboard boxes don't walk themself back to manufacturing plants and turn back into consumables products with no additional environmental costs. It takes a great deal of energy to get them back into your hands. And that comes at a huge energy cost regardless.
  
  You read what I said completely backwards.
  I was not advocating for recycling being the solution, I was saying recycle is not and can never be good enough of a solution. Idk why you misunderstood what I was saying.
  Recycling is not the solution to climate change
  
  While you are correct in that they have a high level of control over industry I think you are entirely incorrect that they wield that irresponsible. In no way am I suggestion they are particularly concerned about the carbon footprint they overall create but they are extremely concerned but the profit they make. As such industry is highly motivated to be the most efficient they can. And the more efficient you are, typically the less energy you will consume per cog built.
  Ultimately it is up to us alone if we want to consume that 'cog' and the carbon footprint it represents.
  
  "profit" isn't real, it's game that wealthy people play. It is a concept of interaction of currency-backed value that all rests on people expecting it to work and exist. They are irresponsible to prioritize endless growth of profits past the point of any perceivable benefit over things like clean air and clean water. Extremely, wildly irresponsible.
- Or if I'm in the 10% bracken and have invested most of that money in the Stock-Market I'd get a fraction of the emissions of all companies in the world?
  I feel like those articles are just so people have someone else to point fingers at and feel as if they don't have to change anything themselves.
  Sure personal responsibility alone won't help without laws but those laws won't happen if people show that they are behind those measures.
  I want to see a politician trying to triple the gas prices and the prices on meat and see that politician be elected.
  People really think they are existing in a vacuum and companies are only polluting for the fun of it - but don't accept how the by far biggest contribution is the average Livestyle of everyone...
  Banning private jets and things like that is probably a good idea to get people behind you but I feel as if it's mostly a gesture compared to a law that would slash meat consumption in half or tackle the fact that everyone sees going everywhere in their truck when biking or walking would've worked fine. The single person doesn't have power but everyone together has and politicians want to get elected so they only tackle an issue when they feel the people are behind them.
  
  Thanks this is so correct. Sure the wealthiest personally have a carbon footprint that is likely a factor larger than the average person but overall they are a consist of a fraction of the population. You could eliminate every single Uber rich person and we still would be emitting nearly the same level of GHGs.
  I want to point out that the average person in Western society has a carbon footprint a factor larger that that of the average person in say China or India. And we only make up about 20 percent of the population.
  Point being if we point the finger at industry that is making products we consume, then it is a certainty global warming will only increase. The only way we can tackle this is if the average person significantly reduces our consumption. Doubling fuel prices thru taxes would be a good start. Good luck with that though. People in the US went nuts when gas hit 5 dollars a gallon last year.
  
  It is not like those companies do their best to pollute the least amount possible.
  No, they rather blame the consumer and tell us we need to recycle than cut into their own profits.
  And recycling is important, but reusing and reducing are a lot more important. But those are parts corporations need to adhere to, so it is a lot less popular for some reason.
- The study's primary metric appears to include both supplier and producer emissions proportional to income and investments. What alternative do you suggest?
  
  You are responsible for the entire carbon footprint from ground to your mouth/back/use. Not the person that worked to provide it to you.
  I am not discounting the problem of wealth inequality. That is a complete seperate issue. But you don't get to transfer your carbon footprint onto other entities because they made the product for you.
  
  You are responsible for the entire carbon footprint from ground to your mouth/back/use. Not the person that worked to provide it to you.
  That's an oversimplification.
  People bare responsibility for their consumption, sure. But people are also limited by their circumstances. We live in a world where alternatives often just aren't available, and even where they are available, they are often not affordable.
  For example, blaming people for the carbon output of their car, while they exist in a country that has systemically refused to invest in public transport because of fossil-fuel industry lobbying, is absurd. Or blaming someone for choosing inexpensive but environmentally damaging foodstuffs, rather than more environmentally friendly alternatives, when they are working in a system that has suppressed wages for decades, is similarly absurd.
  This is part of why trying to individualise the blame for climate change and suggest individual actions is such nonsense. It's just a means to maintain the status quo and do nothing to solve the problem. We need systemic change.
- No
- One point of view could be that since these billionaires are the ones financially benefitting from the companies, that they should also be the ones paying the true cost of the production.
  It's true that the consumers are consuming, but why are the companies making products without cleaning up after their production? Why are billionaires allowed to extract money out of this and leave the environment in an irreparable state.
  Consumers would probably prefer that their money went to the product including all the associated costs of producing it, but consumers don't get that choice, because the company owners extract the money for themselves.
  
  Consumers would lose their shit if they had to pay that additional cost of all the associated costs. Just look at the US response to fuel prices when has hit 5 dollars a gallon. And that was due to supply and demand issues. Can you imagine the outcry if the government put a real tax on the carbon component of every produce? Hell had likely would be 8 dollars a gallon. Your milk prices would like double overnight. Not only would transportation costs increase but it would be taxed for the carbon component of animal to your mouth. All good and clothing and necessities would have to increase significantly.
  
  So xonsumers would have to consume less and profit margins would need to drop.
  I'm all for it.
  
  Overall profits would naturally drop if consumers consumed less. Not profit margins. Margins would settle at some arbitrary amount not really tied to our consumption.
  In other words prices would not natural decrease. They might even increase. Your personal wealth should increase more though as you overall decide to buy less. Ie. Smaller cars, fewer ATVs, don't upgrade your Xbox as soon.
  But with all this additional spare money individuals have because they are consuming less, it is only human nature to eventually spend it and ultimately end up right back with the same personal carbon footprint. The only way I could see a sustained reduction is if governments added significant taxes to nearly every product that was energy intensive in its construction.
  In other words food and housing and that car and ATV would need to increase significantly to encourage smaller houses, small cars, purchases of more efficient food stock etc. Things like digital entrainment that have a fixed cost should ultimately have a low carbon footprint as the reproduction of it per person is minimal. The cost would be low.
  The ideal ecological system is where people sit at home and watch TV all day expending the least amount of calories so we eat less. People only work the minimal hours to build a ten foot by twenty foot house and ensure they have food and water. Outside of that, have few pleasures. The reality is that people will consume to near the maximum they can afford. And even if you do not consume much and leave your children large inheritances, they will simply do the consumption for you. Just delayed a bit.

134 comments