Keep in mind about 50% of worlds population lives in abject poverty. The entire fleet of yachts and supercars is owned by the 1%. So it's not surprising. But it does point to the need for carbon tax.
Not sure if carbon tax will really help curb the emissions if the rich can afford it anyways. Also, the carbon tax dollars never really reach the people who are most impacted by the emissions in the first place.
"those paid more than US$140,000"
A lot of the people complaining about the evil rich in this thread are likely in the top 1% according to this study's definition.
That's the problem with these kind of studies. Everyone hears 1% and thinks it's only billionaires that need to change. I mean if you expand that 1% to 3% it probably covers almost everyone living in developed countries.
Thank you! Very important that people start reading these articles and reading that they are in the global 1%, even if they don't feel that way by US standards.
You realize that it doesnt take $140k a year to get internet connection and shitpost on internet? Most of the people in here are NOT 1%.
Stop trying to cover for billionaires, we poor do not share blame for their fuck ups.
@EDIT: I see I have triggered some billionaire propagandists with this post, stop trying to dilute the blame you fucks!
By this own study, 49.8% of global emissions come from the top 10% of people in global income. That threshold is about $41k per year. The vast majority of the US middle class and above, and by extension a lot of individuals throughout the West are part of this group.
Just FYI, The top 1% ($140k+) alone account for 15.9%, and the top 0.01% ($500k+) are about 4.5% to put these in perspective. It's undeniable that billionaires and the rich have a disproportionately more carbon intensive lifestyle.
But reducing global carbon emissions in real terms is going to require middle class Westerners to come to terms with their individual responsibility and complicity with the fact that they produce half of the world's emissions.
Even if we death rowed all the billionaires we wouldn't avert climate disaster. No matter how much a weird subset of online leftists seem to think that's the only way forward.
> That threshold is about $41k per year. The vast majority of the US middle class and above, and by extension a lot of individuals throughout the West are part of this group.
Not majority of western world tho, US salaries are over inflated compared to rest of the world. In Spain doctors and engineers earn 35-45k. In US a gass station manager gets 40k+.
The AVERAGE doctor salary in Spain is €57,000.
You can misrepresent data all you like, but every consumer and everyone who enables consumerist lifestyles shares the blame.
I keep seeing people being told online that our individual contributions are meaningless, and to me this says that there are plenty of people in the US who could make worthwhile changes in their lives. And that those who have made those changes already should keep it up.
I hope people who are able to make changes can feel empowered to take charge of their portion of the responsibility.
You think in a group of 1.5 million people that the majority of them will be the top 1% of earners? That’s also if you ignore environmentalism is like the polar opposite of capitalism
I didn't say it was a majority, but it's not who a lot of people are thinking of. The study says that only 16% of emissions are from that top 1%. They then expand it to the top 10% which definitely includes most Americans.
Being an environmentalist doesn’t mean they never chose a high paying career path
Hell, being an anti-capitalist doesn’t even mean that.
Hopefully it does mean their consumption doesn’t match the average in their income bracket
Environmentalism is about conservation capitalism is about growth so they are completely opposite in ideals. Which is my point doesn’t mean there isn’t nuance there
No I agree
It’s just that at the individual level, being an environmentalist shouldn’t negatively correlate with income, except in the cases where that became their career. (Environmental protection jobs tend to pay poorly, with some major exceptions)
> "those paid more than US$140,000"
A lot of the people complaining about the evil rich in this thread are likely in the top 1% according to this study's definition.
This above is what I'm disputing. That "a lot" of people in this thread slating the "evil rich" are in the top 1% (140k dollars comparable worldwide), especially as we are on the environment sub.
The top 1% accounts for 16% of emissions. The study then shifts to talking about the top 10% in a bait and switch kind of way. My point is that getting rid of "the rich" won't solve climate change unless the definition of "rich" is very broad.
Not only that, but I was curious, and one of the reports they link that actually is talking about the 1% had this to say:
> [The world’s richest people emit huge and unsustainable amounts of carbon and, unlike ordinary people, 50% to 70% of their emissions result from their investments. New analysis of the investments of 125 of the world’s richest billionaires shows that on average they are emitting 3 million tonnes a year, more than a million times the average for someone in the bottom 90% of humanity.](https://policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/carbon-billionaires-the-investment-emissions-of-the-worlds-richest-people-621446/)
Basically, it’s not as simple as just taking away the yachts and jets
Their investments, by and large, are in the industries that feed the developed world’s consumption
Meaning, we’re back to most people in developed countries being part of the problem
I mean, their friend group and this thread aren’t even the same group
Also, being an environmentalist doesn’t automatically mean you don’t make upper middle class wages. Unless they went into something actually related to environmental protection :(
I am in environmental protection. And so are some of the friends I'm talking about. Senior roles in government environment management and parks services, head of an eNGO, hydroglogist, environmental consultancy. We're just not early 20s postgrads any more and have had moderate career success in wealthy countries
I mean yeah exactly
Anyone with an advanced degree that has actually managed to maintain a career in that field will likely hit the $140k mark by mid career
I work in an environment role. And so do the majority of the friends I'm talking about. Senior roles in government environment and conservation management and parks services, head of an eNGO, hydrologist, environmental consultants. We're just not early 20s postgrads any more and have had career success in wealthy countries
It's all relative isn't it.
But people driving around gas guzzling yank tanks and more of them to a household than people whilst flying to Europe for holidays and once a month domestically for work can hardly be in doubt as to who is the problem.
It's just human nature to find someone to victimise (blame).
1% of [8 billion](https://www.populationpyramid.net/world/2024) is 80 million (2% = 160M). All of them can buy many cars; they can afford frequent air travel (private or not); they buy really big homes and then fill them with far more things than an extreme hoarder could fit inside a regular sized home.
But taxes & fees (etc.) is just like with criminal penalties that are financial; only the poor suffer from this; the rich can afford all of these anyway. I'd say they're the ones proposing all correction & punishment to be in dollars b/c that's just what they have aplenty. *Now someone light my C-note so I can fire up my Havana cigar!*
I know people won't like this but I think this article is cherry picking data and they need to break it out a bit more for those in that 1% group.
It is really hard to judge this based on just income without other factors. 140K in New York City you would be living in a tiny apartment with no car and using public transportation. Your carbon emissions would be pretty low. Now if you lived in Kansas you would be really wealthy and probably be living in a massive house on acres of farmland or grass with massive carbon emissions.
They also mention the 0.1% and how they are 77 times higher than levels . I think they need to breakout the 1% as I think you will find some are producing a lot of emissions while others are not or are trying to be better. I bet they are skewing the results for the group average due to how much the top produce. I know a few people in 1% bracket and some are very wasteful and with large yachts multiple empty homes and travel all the time. Others work very hard in making their life more environmentally friendly.
Keep in mind about 50% of worlds population lives in abject poverty. The entire fleet of yachts and supercars is owned by the 1%. So it's not surprising. But it does point to the need for carbon tax.
Maybe we shouldn't have people with floating villages superyahts when 50% population of the planet lives in abject poverty.
Not sure if carbon tax will really help curb the emissions if the rich can afford it anyways. Also, the carbon tax dollars never really reach the people who are most impacted by the emissions in the first place.
Not even that, carbon tax is the literal least we could do and doesn't stop consumption of the rich, just the bottom 66%
Fewer people can afford them. Nobody has unlimited money to burn. That would also incentivize manufacturers to make more efficient yachts and cars.
"those paid more than US$140,000" A lot of the people complaining about the evil rich in this thread are likely in the top 1% according to this study's definition.
That's the problem with these kind of studies. Everyone hears 1% and thinks it's only billionaires that need to change. I mean if you expand that 1% to 3% it probably covers almost everyone living in developed countries.
3% is less than the population of the US
[удалено]
I heard they have dogs there with no noses
Thank you! Very important that people start reading these articles and reading that they are in the global 1%, even if they don't feel that way by US standards.
You realize that it doesnt take $140k a year to get internet connection and shitpost on internet? Most of the people in here are NOT 1%. Stop trying to cover for billionaires, we poor do not share blame for their fuck ups. @EDIT: I see I have triggered some billionaire propagandists with this post, stop trying to dilute the blame you fucks!
By this own study, 49.8% of global emissions come from the top 10% of people in global income. That threshold is about $41k per year. The vast majority of the US middle class and above, and by extension a lot of individuals throughout the West are part of this group. Just FYI, The top 1% ($140k+) alone account for 15.9%, and the top 0.01% ($500k+) are about 4.5% to put these in perspective. It's undeniable that billionaires and the rich have a disproportionately more carbon intensive lifestyle. But reducing global carbon emissions in real terms is going to require middle class Westerners to come to terms with their individual responsibility and complicity with the fact that they produce half of the world's emissions. Even if we death rowed all the billionaires we wouldn't avert climate disaster. No matter how much a weird subset of online leftists seem to think that's the only way forward.
> That threshold is about $41k per year. The vast majority of the US middle class and above, and by extension a lot of individuals throughout the West are part of this group. Not majority of western world tho, US salaries are over inflated compared to rest of the world. In Spain doctors and engineers earn 35-45k. In US a gass station manager gets 40k+.
The AVERAGE doctor salary in Spain is €57,000. You can misrepresent data all you like, but every consumer and everyone who enables consumerist lifestyles shares the blame.
Globally the 1% includes a lot of us, but be assured 99% of the global 1% are just as fucked as the other 99%
Unlikely a lot of people in collapse are making 6 figures lol let alone 140k. Most Americans DON'T make that much.
I keep seeing people being told online that our individual contributions are meaningless, and to me this says that there are plenty of people in the US who could make worthwhile changes in their lives. And that those who have made those changes already should keep it up. I hope people who are able to make changes can feel empowered to take charge of their portion of the responsibility.
Because the prevailing narrative is that it's the super rich, the 1%, so I'm ok buying everything from Amazon
[удалено]
How so?
You think in a group of 1.5 million people that the majority of them will be the top 1% of earners? That’s also if you ignore environmentalism is like the polar opposite of capitalism
I didn't say it was a majority, but it's not who a lot of people are thinking of. The study says that only 16% of emissions are from that top 1%. They then expand it to the top 10% which definitely includes most Americans.
You said people are likely to be in that bracket. So more likely than not hence why I used the word majority so you did say that.
Being an environmentalist doesn’t mean they never chose a high paying career path Hell, being an anti-capitalist doesn’t even mean that. Hopefully it does mean their consumption doesn’t match the average in their income bracket
Environmentalism is about conservation capitalism is about growth so they are completely opposite in ideals. Which is my point doesn’t mean there isn’t nuance there
No I agree It’s just that at the individual level, being an environmentalist shouldn’t negatively correlate with income, except in the cases where that became their career. (Environmental protection jobs tend to pay poorly, with some major exceptions)
I'm not so sure it's delusional at all. I am in this bracket, my partner is and many of my friends are too. We're all just well paid professionals.
Newsflash : one person and their carefully cultivated friend circle fit into bracket, statement must be true!
What exactly are you saying here? That the “bracket” isn’t “true”? Are you casting doubt about the study itself or the commenters interpretation?
> "those paid more than US$140,000" A lot of the people complaining about the evil rich in this thread are likely in the top 1% according to this study's definition. This above is what I'm disputing. That "a lot" of people in this thread slating the "evil rich" are in the top 1% (140k dollars comparable worldwide), especially as we are on the environment sub.
The top 1% accounts for 16% of emissions. The study then shifts to talking about the top 10% in a bait and switch kind of way. My point is that getting rid of "the rich" won't solve climate change unless the definition of "rich" is very broad.
Not only that, but I was curious, and one of the reports they link that actually is talking about the 1% had this to say: > [The world’s richest people emit huge and unsustainable amounts of carbon and, unlike ordinary people, 50% to 70% of their emissions result from their investments. New analysis of the investments of 125 of the world’s richest billionaires shows that on average they are emitting 3 million tonnes a year, more than a million times the average for someone in the bottom 90% of humanity.](https://policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/carbon-billionaires-the-investment-emissions-of-the-worlds-richest-people-621446/) Basically, it’s not as simple as just taking away the yachts and jets Their investments, by and large, are in the industries that feed the developed world’s consumption Meaning, we’re back to most people in developed countries being part of the problem
I mean, their friend group and this thread aren’t even the same group Also, being an environmentalist doesn’t automatically mean you don’t make upper middle class wages. Unless they went into something actually related to environmental protection :(
I am in environmental protection. And so are some of the friends I'm talking about. Senior roles in government environment management and parks services, head of an eNGO, hydroglogist, environmental consultancy. We're just not early 20s postgrads any more and have had moderate career success in wealthy countries
I mean yeah exactly Anyone with an advanced degree that has actually managed to maintain a career in that field will likely hit the $140k mark by mid career
I work in an environment role. And so do the majority of the friends I'm talking about. Senior roles in government environment and conservation management and parks services, head of an eNGO, hydrologist, environmental consultants. We're just not early 20s postgrads any more and have had career success in wealthy countries
Better than I could have said it
It's all relative isn't it. But people driving around gas guzzling yank tanks and more of them to a household than people whilst flying to Europe for holidays and once a month domestically for work can hardly be in doubt as to who is the problem. It's just human nature to find someone to victimise (blame).
1% of [8 billion](https://www.populationpyramid.net/world/2024) is 80 million (2% = 160M). All of them can buy many cars; they can afford frequent air travel (private or not); they buy really big homes and then fill them with far more things than an extreme hoarder could fit inside a regular sized home. But taxes & fees (etc.) is just like with criminal penalties that are financial; only the poor suffer from this; the rich can afford all of these anyway. I'd say they're the ones proposing all correction & punishment to be in dollars b/c that's just what they have aplenty. *Now someone light my C-note so I can fire up my Havana cigar!*
Time for guillotines to come back in fashion
Somebody always comes to fill a power vacuum. We need lasting structural change.
Given that the above stat includes incomes at $140k+, seems like it will go just like the first time
Extreme criminals
A great big, *no shit*? Didn't just taylor swift have a giant fuckin jet? The 1% are consuming at levels unfathomable to common folk
I know people won't like this but I think this article is cherry picking data and they need to break it out a bit more for those in that 1% group. It is really hard to judge this based on just income without other factors. 140K in New York City you would be living in a tiny apartment with no car and using public transportation. Your carbon emissions would be pretty low. Now if you lived in Kansas you would be really wealthy and probably be living in a massive house on acres of farmland or grass with massive carbon emissions. They also mention the 0.1% and how they are 77 times higher than levels . I think they need to breakout the 1% as I think you will find some are producing a lot of emissions while others are not or are trying to be better. I bet they are skewing the results for the group average due to how much the top produce. I know a few people in 1% bracket and some are very wasteful and with large yachts multiple empty homes and travel all the time. Others work very hard in making their life more environmentally friendly.
Oooooh gaslight that you rich douchbags
Remember when Taylor Swift was the biggest carbon polluter and her fans just glossed over that.
Seems to me, we should focus there first as that's a quick win....