| ▲ | amazingamazing 21 hours ago |
| When will the rich, say top 10% of planet decrease their emissions? |
|
| ▲ | cbg0 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| How exactly would that make a dent? CO2 sources: - Electricity + heat production ~40–42% - Industry + manufacturing ~20–22% - Road transport ~12–13% - Deforestation & land-use change ~10% - Direct fuel use in buildings ~5–6% - Aviation ~2–3% - Shipping ~2–3% - Rail, pipelines & other transport ~1% - Flaring / other energy & industrial sources ~2–4% I'm guessing the private jets is what you're hinting at? Aviation above includes all flights, not just private jets. |
| |
| ▲ | tito 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | The top 10% richest humans emit about half of all emissions. Decile 10 (richest): ~48% Decile 9: ~15% Decile 8: ~10% Decile 7: ~8% Decile 6: ~6% Deciles 1 through 5 combined: ~12%, so about 1 to 3% each I wouldn't necessarily focus on it, but it's something good for your mental model of how to solve the challenge. The reason I say I wouldn't focus on it is I'm coming around to the idea that "carbon footprint" is effectively a marketing campaign brought on by oil companies to have us focus our individual power where it has the lowest leverage - sorting trash, our own individual emissions, etc, Instead of mobilizing hundreds, thousands, millions, and billions of people to change policy and technology. Sources like this: www.oxfam.org.uk/media/press-releases/richest-1-emit-as-much-planet-heating-pollution-as-two-thirds-of-humanity-oxfam/ | | |
| ▲ | cbg0 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The figures aren't based on real measurements of what every person actually emits, they're based on a model that allocates consumption-based CO2 emissions across income groups. Regardless of that, I agree that making useful policy changes is important, replacing some plastic straws won't make a huge change, but getting rid of coal will. | | |
| ▲ | card_zero 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | So that means if you buy something made of steel, and the steel was made in India, you get assigned that part of India's emissions, counted as your emissions. The whole concept of "your emissions" then is based on blaming the blaming the consumer, the buyer, for what the emitter, the seller, did. Implicitly the buyer has a duty to control the seller in the other country, but the sellers (and their legislature) are unable to make choices. |
| |
| ▲ | card_zero 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That "top 10% richest" means the 10% of the planet, 800,000,000 people, which is the richest 10%. (It could be understood differently, as if it meant those earning more than 90% of the maximum income anybody has.) |
|
|
|
| ▲ | pingou 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| European Union annual CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions have decreased by over 30% since 2005 (no, not just by getting their stuff manufactured in China). |
|
| ▲ | p-e-w 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The top 10% of the planet aren’t “the rich”, what a gross and incendiary misuse of the term. |
| |
| ▲ | tito 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The top 10% richest humans emit about half of all emissions. Decile 10 (richest): ~48% Decile 9: ~15% Decile 8: ~10% Decile 7: ~8% Decile 6: ~6% Deciles 1 through 5 combined: ~12%, so about 1 to 3% each Sources like this: www.oxfam.org.uk/media/press-releases/richest-1-emit-as-much-planet-heating-pollution-as-two-thirds-of-humanity-oxfam/ | |
| ▲ | hocuspocus 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If you live in better material conditions than 90% of the world population, you're rich, by definition. This is nearly half the global CO2 footprint. | |
| ▲ | infinitezest 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What would _you_ call the top 10% richest people in the world? Middle upper, upper, upper, upper class? | | |
| ▲ | p-e-w 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | 95% of the top 10% are middle class, because the vast majority of the world’s population are middle or lower class. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | SoftTalker 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |
