• grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    96
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    ITT: people who don’t realize that the article is talking about them because they’re either in that 1% or damn close to it.

      • TaTTe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        60% of the US population is like 200 million. 1% of the global population is 80 million. Your maths is way off.

        I’d assume something closer to 6% of the US are in the top 1%.

        • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oh the second source was household income rather than individual, putting the percentage at about 37% of us households are in the globally top 1%.

          • TaTTe@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Still doesn’t add up. 37% of the US population is 120 million. 1% of the global population is still 80 million.

            Are you comparing US household income to global individual income? If that’s the case I can see your percentages working, but that comparison doesn’t make much sense so I’m still lost.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yup most of the Western world is in the top 1 percent. The rest of the Western world benefits from it.

      It’s me. Hi. I’m the problem. It’s me.

      • aubertlone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Quoting Taylor Swift is… an interesting choice when talking about climate changes.

        Didn’t her recent tour require 90+ semi trucks just to go from city to city? Not even going to mention all the emissions that result from whenever they have to travel by plane.

        Yes, popular music acts that tour are a HUGE part of the problem.

        Also, my bad I’m not tryna harp on you just because I recognized a song lyric. I’m a Taylor Swift fan myself. Well, more of a chiefs fan. And by value of the transitive property…

        Edit: also apparently all air travel only accounts for about 2% of emissions. So while my point isnt technically wrong it’s missing the forest for the trees

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Didn’t her recent tour require 90+ semi trucks just to go from city to city? Not even going to mention all the emissions that result from whenever they have to travel by plane.

          Yes, popular music acts that tour are a HUGE part of the problem

          They absolutely are not. 90 trucks is nothing.

          At any given time there are millions of semis (2.97 million total) driving the streets. Literally every single thing you’ve ever purchased in your life has been on a semi.

          90 trucks driving for a couple months is not significant.

          • aubertlone@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I already mentioned I was wrong about the air travel. I looked up the numbers and edited my comment immediately.

            Yeah the trucks are a drop in the sea as well.

            But stop kidding yourself that the 90 semi trucks is nothing. It’s all pollution.

            What other tour and/or concert is slipping around 90 semi trucks??

            You bring up a good point that there are millions of semi trucks on the road. But that’s ridiculous to compare her 90 semi trucks to all the trucks on the road

            Let’s compare her to other touring artists. To be honest I don’t have the numbers off top of my head I’ll have to look him up. But I was reading an article the other day about how her tour is one of the largest productions to date.

            So no, her 90 trucks are not a huge part of the problem. That wording was wrong on my part. But among touring artist, she is easily one of the biggest polluters.

        • Zpiritual@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s nothing. If 90 trucks were a HUGE part of the problem we’d have solved that in an hour. The problem is in the millions of trucks, cars, ships, airplanes, plants, etc.

          • aubertlone@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes my wording was terrible. you’re right that it’s the millions of other things constantly polluting that’s the problem.

            My point was just that her tour is one of the largest ever. Largest ever also means one of the most polluting ever.

          • aubertlone@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            fwiw I used to live in India many years ago.

            Was lucky enough to emigrate to the states when I was eight years old. We didn’t have a car back then. My dad had a moped that we used a lot.

            But yeah, I didn’t use to be part of the problem. But now I am as well

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just how small do you think the western world is? The US alone is 330 million, which is 4% of the world’s population.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          And the EU is 450M.

          By the numbers a bit less than half the Western world is in the one percent.

          Edit - I should have been more clear above. I was thinking about countries, not people.

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s funny how often people who are in the global 5-10% talk about how clueless the 1% of the West is, while being so clueless about their own wealth.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      The world’s population is about 8.1 billion. The top 1% of that is 81 million. The population of the G7 (a reasonable substitute for the richest countries) is approx 800 million. So, if you’re in the top 10% and in a G7 country, you’re in that top 1%.

      Top 10% income in the US is approx $170k per year. That’s mid-level manager wages.

      • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Are you not conflating top 10% of wealthy people with top 10% of wealth? Looking at these differently vastly changes the results, e.g.:

        Of course, in the real world numbers are much more skewed and you have hundreds of millions in developing nations at the bottom making literal pennies a day, bringing the “top 10%” of wealth (not top 10% of wealthy people) to include some single mom making 45k in the US.

        • merc@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I understand the distinction you’re making, but in this case we’re talking about the top 1% of wealthiest people. From the article:

          The most comprehensive study of global climate inequality ever undertaken shows that this elite group, made up of 77 million people including billionaires, millionaires and those paid more than US$140,000 (£112,500) a year, accounted for 16% of all CO2 emissions in 2019

          Also, the phrase “the top 10% of wealth” doesn’t really make any sense. How can wealth itself have percentiles? A percentile shows the percentage of scores that a particular score surpassed. So, the wealthiest 10% means people whose wealth is higher than 90% of other people. What would the top 10% of wealth be?

          I think the point you’re trying to make is that the top 0.01% are much, much wealthier than the typical person in the top 1%, and probably one individual in that top 0.01% probably contributes as much CO2 as hundreds or thousands of people who are merely in the top 1%. And, I fully agree. But, this article has put the cutoff at the top 1%, which includes both Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates but also your dentist, the guy who owns the Chevy dealership, and the woman who manages the HR department.

          Two things can be true. In this case, it’s that the ultra-wealthy with private jets, multiple houses, etc. live lifestyles that put out vast amounts of CO2. But, also, a fairly average American lifestyle is also very CO2 intensive, compared to how a poor person in India or Cameroon lives.

  • andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    83
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    The cover photo is a jet plane but remember, US$140,000/year is the threshold they’re quoting in the article so the reality is more like a decent car or two and a house in a nicer area will drop you into that range.

  • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    ITT: People who don’t understand cradle to grave manufacturing. When I decide to make a product I take on responsibility for that product until it is no longer in use and has been properly disposed of. That is ethical manufacturing as decided by industry.

    If your product is transportation then you are responsible for the emissions created by transporting. The consumer gets no say in it. Even if they were extremely well researched, which no consumer has that type of resources, they are still not privy to all of a businesses practices at every level.

    Assholes in this thread want to push off all the responsibility on to consumers, as if being a consumer is unethical. This is a scapegoat for manufacturers who don’t want to foot the bill because their product is not viable if you consider the all the corners they cut.

    Don’t believe me, look up any lawsuit that deals with any superpac. Businesses are responsible.

  • Adramis@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It feels disingenuous at best to lump in people making $60k/year with Jeff Bezos and other billionaires. Just twelve billionaires account for 2,100,000 homes worth of emissions, and that’s only the raw output of their travel and other direct expenses: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/20/twelve-billionaires-climate-emissions-jeff-bezos-bill-gates-elon-musk-carbon-divide

    Yes, we can all do our bit to help out, but workers pointing fingers at other workers will only ever benefit the ruling class.

    • Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes, we can all do our bit to help out, but workers pointing fingers at other workers will only ever benefit the ruling class.

      Don’t forget that you have more than one finger. You have fingers to spare to point blame at those who deserve it, and few of us in first world countries don’t.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, 1% of 8.1 billion is 81 million. So, it’s roughly the top 10% of population of the wealthiest countries.

      That includes both Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, but also middle managers in marketing, astronomers, HR managers, air traffic controllers, etc.

  • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    1 year ago

    No shit?

    Of course the 1% are accounting for the majority of personal emissions, they are the only ones who can afford to.

    What I want to know is how much of the total emissions are non private in origin.

  • Aux@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    26
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s bullshit of a report. If you read it, you will quickly learn how they calculate emissions from the rich. They include things like owning company shares and having influence over the media. So if Bezos owns a major stake in Amazon, he is automatically responsible for all Amazon emissions. And if his PR team publishes some stuff to FB, he’s now responsoble for emissions of Facebook servers. That’s utter bullshit.

    If you buy from Amazon, it’s YOU who are responsoble for all associated emissions like delivery, manufacturing, etc, not Bezos. This report also doesn’t take into account that better off people usually live in well-insulated homes, drive more efficient cars and eat better organic food, thus reducing their footprint further.

    This report also mentions yachts and private jets a lot, but don’t forget that ALL airtraffic accounts only for 2% of all emissions and private jets are a drop in the ocean.

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      eat better organic food

      A slight nit-pick here, but when it comes to greenhouse gas impact, organic food may be worse. It’s certainly not clearly better.

      • GiveMemes@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Almost definitely worse lol. We have the option to modify the genome of the plants we eat in order to make then better in every way and still some people are like “no that’s icky because science”.

          • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Usually people assume organic is the opposite of GMOs and stuff, but it’s also nonsense because they’d never drink water straight from a puddle, but want the shit on their crops to be as untreated as possible. Or well, sold to them that way, of course it’s not, it’s just fertilizer #2 instead of the - more efficient and hence indirectly better for the environment - fertilizer #1.

      • CraigeryTheKid@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah I’ve overheard that before too. If they would just change their words to “eat less meat” they’re be right, but to only say “organic” implies standard agriculture is worse, and it is not clearly so.

        We should eat less meat though.

        • Aux@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          We sholdn’t eat less meat, meat is pretty much zero emission and closed loop food production. We should more.

    • maynarkh@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you buy from Amazon, it’s YOU who are responsoble for all associated emissions like delivery, manufacturing, etc, not Bezos.

      That would only be true if Amazon had real competition and would not be acting like a monopoly, as many other companies do.

      • rchive@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Amazon is very much not a monopoly. There are thousands of online retailers. There are also a lot of delivery services, no idea if there are thousands, but there’s a lot.

        • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Isn’t it more planet reponsible then to order from Amazon where, if I order say 6 items, they’ll come from the same warehouse in the same delivery (at least ove here!) instead of in 6 deliveries from 6 different vendors who also all had to get individual deliveries of their stock first?

          • Sockenklaus@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Lol your statement doesn’t hold true for where I live. We live more or less in the vicinity of the nearest Amazon warehouse, like 50 km away…

            When we order several (like 6) items, they send 6 packages, each individually packed, with 6 delivery drivers over two days, ringing three times a day (noon, afternoon, late evening).

            This is purely anecdotal but almost comically bad logistics…

          • Aux@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes, it’s better to bulk order from Amazon. Just don’t order one small thing like a screwdriver, a whole truck driving around for your 100g package is dumb.

            • kablammy@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Surely it’s still more efficient for the truck to carry that screwdriver and a whole truckload of other goods, in a single journey, with optimised route, rather than me (and every other Amazon shopper) driving my car to the nearest hardware store to buy that screwdriver?

      • Aux@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Amazon is NOT a monopoly. And the problem here is not Amazon, but the products YOU buy. It doesn’t matter if you buy from Amazon or Wallmart or whatever.

      • statist43@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        And if they would offer a envoirementfriendly alternative, that nobody uses.

        But let me tell you a non secret, they dont give a shit

    • Mamertine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      better off people usually live in well-insulated homes…

      Remember Al Gore’s house that he was touting back around 2007 as super energy efficient? Then some news outlets reported it used 25x as much energy as a normal single family home.

      Snopes looked into it and said false, it only uses 10x as much electricity as a normal house, but that’s okay because it’s 4 times the size of a normal house.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you buy from Amazon, it’s YOU who are responsoble for all associated emissions like delivery, manufacturing, etc, not Bezos.

      no, i’m not.

      • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Please explain how you aren’t responsible for the emissions used to manufacture/deliver the product that you personally purchased.

        Did someone force you to buy it? No? Then it’s your fault.

        REDUCE. REUSE. RECYCLE.

        The more products you consume, the more emissions for those products. If you don’t like it, then don’t buy it. Source from responsible retailers, or at least don’t buy from fucking Amazon. Everything about the system we live in exists because people like you throw money at billionaires and then complain that they’re rich.

        “I’m not responsible for being a consumer whore” is the exact lack of personal responsibility that makes anything else you say a joke.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Please explain how you aren’t responsible for the emissions used to manufacture/deliver the product that you personally purchased.

          if i don’t buy it, will the producer have already done all the pollution? if i don’t buy it, will any fewer trucks run? no. but if the producer doesn’t make it, the pollution doesn’t happen. the fault lies entirely with the producers.

          • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            If people don’t buy a product, then there’s no demand.

            If there’s no demand, a product doesn’t get created.

            Do you think people are out here making shit for fun until someone comes along and purchases it? That producers produce in a vacuum without any kind of reason as to why? They make it cause you’ll buy it. Therefore the consumers create the demand that leads to the product being produced in the first place.

            It’s insane that you can fundamentally misunderstand basic economics this much, to think the consumers don’t have any effect on what is created.

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              If there’s no demand, a product doesn’t get created.

              that’s just not true. people make things without a proven market all the time. in fact, all consumer goods are made before they are proven to be able to be sold.

            • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              This guy either has no sense of personal responsibility or he doesn’t understand supply and demand for shit.

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                “supply and demand” isn’t a magic phrase that makes me responsible for what other people do.

              • Dkcecil91@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Personal responsibility has been an excellent tool for large corporations who make deliberate business decisions causing their manufacturing process to be worse for workers and the environment. Belief in personal responsibility as a serious value is what allowed a scam like recycling to be knowingly pushed by polluters for decades as a consumer-driven solution that requires little to no work from producers even though most products can’t be recycled anyway and recycling is, in fact, not a solution to anything in and of itself.

    • vimdiesel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Go look at any multimillionaire’s house in California and then compared its resource usage to a dilapidated trailer in the deep south in a poor county. They’ll be using 50-100x the resources of the poor family.

    • wizzor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It is worth noting that the richest 1% includes everyone who makes more than 140k$/year.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    The richest 1% of humanity is responsible for more carbon emissions than the poorest 66%, with dire consequences for vulnerable communities and global efforts to tackle the climate emergency, a report says.

    For the past six months, the Guardian has worked with Oxfam, the Stockholm Environment Institute and other experts on an exclusive basis to produce a special investigation, The Great Carbon Divide.

    Over the period from 1990 to 2019, the accumulated emissions of the 1% were equivalent to wiping out last year’s harvests of EU corn, US wheat, Bangladeshi rice and Chinese soya beans.

    “The super-rich are plundering and polluting the planet to the point of destruction and it is those who can least afford it who are paying the highest price,” said Chiara Liguori, Oxfam’s senior climate justice policy adviser.

    The extravagant carbon footprint of the 0.1% – from superyachts, private jets and mansions to space flights and doomsday bunkers – is 77 times higher than the upper level needed for global warming to peak at 1.5C.

    Oxfam International’s interim executive director, Amitabh Behar, said: “Not taxing wealth allows the richest to rob from us, ruin our planet and renege on democracy.


    The original article contains 853 words, the summary contains 194 words. Saved 77%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • vimdiesel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    when you own 90% of the wealth and resources, i’m kind of shocked that is “poorest 90%”

  • GreenM@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Aren’t you now glad we aren’t all ultra rich mofos ? Noone would be able to breathe that out.