There are about 3000 billionaires. So their emissions account for 3 billion average persons. Its like the population of earth is 11 billion ppl instead of 8.
Prison
And that was 2022 guys. Feels like different era.
damn, good efficiency for them considering they’re about a billion times richer than me
my gasses per dollar are way higher! the problem is obviously with people like me
1% and .1% are also drastically different.
A quick search told me the “poorest person” in the top 1% in the U.S. would have a net worth around 13.7 million.
Well, you’re probably spending somewhat over two dollars per day on your survival, so unless they’re ALL blowing through half-a-billion dollars every year, their pollution-per-dollar is also greater than your’s
I keep saying that the simple math is that it’s about 8 billion of us vs about 2000 of them.
Who is the average person? Is it the global average person? Is it the average American? I mean as an Australian I am responsible for far more emissions than the average Papuan.
The worst countries for energy use per capita are mostly middle-eastern oil and gas producers, and places that are very cold and energy producers (Iceland, Norway, Canada), and for some reason Singapore and Trinidad and Tobago.
If you look at just fossil fuel use per capita the picture is slightly different. Iceland drops way down the list. They use a lot of energy, but it’s mostly geothermal and hydroelectric. After the middle east, Singapore and Trinidad and Tobago it’s USA and Canada at the top. Canada is basically USA with cold winters. Then it’s South Korea, Russia, Australia, etc.
I think what they mean in this case is “the average person”, i.e. divide all the CO2 produced by 8.2 billion. Since half of those people live in massive poverty and have virtually no carbon footprint, the per-person number is much less than any Australian, Canadian, American, etc.
Yeah, i think separating billionaires from the rest goes some way to making working and middle class people feel like that we’ve done our bit. By that, I mean it may as well be a billionaire compared to some one in extreme poverty.
On a side note, I wonder if those maritime countries pay a penalty for all the fossil fueled powered shipping they need. Also Singapore is a major oil refiner which might be affecting them.
I was thinking that maybe this has to do with “flag of convenience” status. If a Singapore-flagged ship burns massive amounts of fossil fuels but the owners are Australian and the crew is Filipino, does the country of Singapore get the CO2 bill?
But, the list of biggest flag of convenience countries does (sort of) include Singapore, but not Trinidad and Tobago. And, if shipping mattered you’d think Liberia would be higher on the CO2 per capita list.
As for making people feel like we’ve done our bit. Yeah, I don’t fly around the world in a private jet. Or, like some billionaires, fly around with 2 private jets, the second one on standby in case there’s an issue with the first one. I just don’t think that’s a good excuse for not examining how I live. There are hundreds of millions of people like me, and only about 3000 billionaires in the world.
It’s this realization that led me to buying a truck. I always wanted one but couldn’t justify it, too wasteful. Well, after this shitshow I realize that all my guilt has been to naught, only there to placate the masses to reduce in order for the billionaires to get away with anything.
So, when I needed a new vehicle, I got the one I wanted. Ironically it’s both the largest and best gas mileage car I’ve ever owned (still got a hybrid, but because it’s cool, gas savings are an appreciated benefit).
I still can’t shake all the guilt, but I absolutely love my vehicle at least.
emissions aren’t really the argument against modern pickups - it’s size, safety, and asshole factor (like bright ass white LED headlights four feet off the ground).
your new pickup probably gets the same fuel economy as my 18yo car
the other argument resources consumed when buying used vs new, which is, as I understand it, a difficult analysis to perform.
but yeah, people shouldn’t hate you for the fuel economy of your pickup that’s just as good as my old car. they should hate you for your obscenely offensive vehicle (if it is one, that is) that makes it difficult and dangerous to be around
I mean, agree, but I’m a scout leader who towes at least monthly, had a bed full of wreaths to deliver yesterday for example… I’m a middle aged dude with a work from home job, so all of those are indeed considerations and I do my best to be conscientious. Besides, my properly aimed headlights produce less glare than all the aftermarket, poorly aimed ones that people who think the blueish light makes them look fancier.
It’s commmts like yours though that kinda irk me. I mean, if a grey 4 wheel drive pickup, with a bunch of campground stickers offends someone, that’s not really on me. I’ll take the hate from assholes any day.
pickups don’t inherently bother me. asshole vehicles of any type do - it’s just that *modern pickups are common offenders, often for false beliefs such as “my properly aimed headlights are fine”, when they are in fact not fine all the time because roads are not flat and smooth.
I have no problem with people using tools to get things done. I have problems with people being assholes to other people.
I literally just want a truck that can fit 4x8 ft sheet in the bed, like a 2009 Ford Ranger long bed. Unfortunately they don’t make trucks like that anymore primarily due to EPA fleet footprint rules.
yeah, modern vehicle regulations and manufacturer priorities are fucked up
I ended up getting a lightweight trailer for hauling full sheets, which is fine in a personal use case
I’ve looked into trailers. I have a RAV4 so towing isn’t an amazing option but I could store it in a garage or something.
U-Haul is $1 a mile in my area which adds up pretty quick on top of the rental fee.
lol your car is probably more suitable than mine are for towing, or at least no worse ('outback and Elantra, 15+ and 10+ years old, respectively). I maxed mine out hauling dirt home recently, had to make multiple trips. it was fine though, only 20 min each way.
I have the space to store it, and it’s easy to move by hand, so it works great for me. townhomes and apartments haven’t got the same opportunity.
*modern pickups are common offenders, often for false beliefs such as “my properly aimed headlights are fine”, when they are in fact not fine all the time because roads are not flat and smooth.
Not to harp, but roads not being smooth is a problem for all lights, not just pickups. If I’m behind someone, even close, my headlights are pointed below their rear window, I watch for where the line cuts off so as to intentionally not blind people. I’m high up and am often still blinded by any number of cars behind me though.
I totally agree that many truck drivers are assholes, and there’s a shitton of assholes with the squat and lifts and shit who never adjust them. Those are the ones to get mad at.
Do you haul lots of stuff with your truck? It sounds like you do. Therefore, you’re not just some asshole who buys a truck for the ‘manliness’ factor. Good on you for choosing a vehicle that suits your needs.
Those who only ever haul groceries or frat boys are the ones who shouldn’t be driving trucks.
I’m not claiming it’s limited to pickups. I equally hate sedan drivers who do that shit.
Others being worse should never be used as an excuse to be worse by oneself. Also cars are one of the largest emitters in a single category… Progress towards solving it will involve lifestyle changes for everyone.
Listen. These people are a cancer, and they need to be fully removed from society. They are literally killing us.
Then let’s pressurize them and sequester them in a cave under the New Mexico scrubland.
Why? Don’t they use cardboard straws for their frappes?
No, they use a servant as a straw.
Centurii Chan is oddly focused on being allowed to say the N word
I’d argue industry is the primary culprit, but they ain’t wrong that billionaires emit a massive amount of CO2 more that the average Joe/Jane
Industry wouldn’t be making anything if people weren’t buying the goods and services they produce.
If you buy a huge firework that you use at a gender reveal party, who gets assigned the CO2 from the entire production pipeline of the item you bought? Is it the company that made the firework? Is it the company that dug up the raw materials that were refined to make the contents of the firework? Or is it you because you bought the firework? I’d say it should be you.
There are exceptions to this. For example, during COVID some of the airlines were flying empty planes around because they had deals with airports that to keep their slots in the system they had to be using them. In that case the company was polluting but no consumer was directly to blame. But, those are rare. And, you could argue that anybody who bought a flight on those airlines after that ended up paying them back for doing that and thus shares responsibility for it.
No one is holding a gun to the owners of industry and forcing them to over produce. People can only buy what is available to them. The onus of responsibility is on the producers to produce sustainability, not for consumers to not buy their products and hope that producers change. Especially under the current system where there is no alternative means for consumers to acquire their goods or services, as the means of production are currently privately owned by the bourgeois.
People need things. People will have to buy things that are available. Systemic forces dictate what they can afford and what is convenient for them. Asking people to go without is not a feasible request to ask of millions of individuals when the alternative is making a minority of a few hundred owners cut the bullshit.
Your position is incredibly ignorant to the systemic forces behind why industry is the way it is. Industry induces demand through public manipulation and media, as well as through infrastructure and other systemic forces that dictate people’s lives. Industry will still create things because just being on a shelf is a chance for profit, even if people don’t buy it. They KNOW most of their product gets trashed but they don’t care because it is still profitable to do so and the system will always ensure that it is profitable at the expense of everyone else through the suppression of wages and working conditions if sales don’t meet expectations.
You do know that, in the US alone, we throw away up to 40% of our food supply annually because it goes bad on store shelves? Been this way for decades but we still have egregious issues with the food production industry being a major contributor for the climate crisis. Your suggestion of forcing the responsibility onto consumer is just unreasonable and proven not to be effective.
So, to your question, who should be assigned the CO2 credits for the production of a product? Obviously, it should be the producers not the consumer.
No one is holding a gun to the owners of industry and forcing them to over produce
They’re not overproducing, and when it happens by accident their shareholders punish them for wasting money.
The onus of responsibility is on the producers to produce sustainability, not for consumers to not buy their products
Bullshit, that’s a way to avoid responsibility for your own decisions. Your purchasing drives their production. If you stopped buying they’d stop making.
People need things
People need some things, but people need less than they buy.
People will have to buy things that are available
People need less than they buy, and should be conscious of how much they buy, what they buy, etc.
Systemic forces dictate what they can afford and what is convenient for them.
True, and it’s hard to change the entire system at once, but you can slowly bend it. In the 1980s Apartheit was just how things were done in South Africa. Since they were a sovereign country nobody could force them to change without invading them. But people boycotted them and shamed them. By people thinking about whether or not their money supported the Apartheit regime, they managed to change it.
Your position is incredibly ignorant to the systemic forces
Your position is extremely lazy, using those systemic forces as an excuse to do nothing, or to do whatever you want because you pretend you can’t change the system.
just being on a shelf is a chance for profit, even if people don’t buy it
Sure buddy. Things on a shelf turn a profit when nobody buys them. If that’s the kind of economic analysis you do, no wonder you’re so confused.
They’re not overproducing
Lol okay. Sure buddy. Not even gonna bother reading the rest if you’re gonna go with this off rip.
Wow, you are truly clueless
It’s a shame you feel this way because I feel like further debate between you two would’ve been very productive for discourse.
I don’t really 100% agree with either of you, but you both made valid points from my perspective and you both clearly give a shit about the world.
I’ll respect how you feel though, I just wanted to express my disappointment.
I think it should be counted an extra time for every entity involved. Everyone gets the blame. Everyone did bad stuff.
If everyone’s to blame, nobody’s to blame. So, that’s not very useful.
Here’s how we win: we identify and address the problems, focus on the potential solutions, and work towards those solutions in a cohesive way.
Blame simply doesn’t fit into that equation in any helpful way, even if it personally makes us feel better in the moment.
Put another way, are you going to be part of the solution or part of the problem? Which is more constructive?
I’m going to stand outside the system and analyze it.
I respect that strategy. Just want to clarify that I was speaking generally, not directed to anyone in particular.
Who controls industry?
Ok yes, but my point is that the vast majority of pollution is happening in the execution of commerce, primarily shipping/transport, than is an individual or collective billionaire’s leisure activities. Perhaps I just took the caption in a different light.
Billionaires and consumers worked together to burn all that oil. That’s why we need to eat the rich AND ban cars.
Hate to break it to you, but individual personal transport will never be fully eradicated.
The thing is, even if it’s true that the average billionaire uses 1,000,000x as much energy as the average person, there are so few billionaires that most of the world’s CO2 is still emitted by the other 8.2 billion.
We definitely should make it so there are no billionaires. Tax them out of existence, and if that doesn’t work, axe them out of existence.
Having said that, we also need to take responsibility for our own wasteful lives. Just look at how inefficient cars are. In North America it’s perfectly normal to jump into a vehicle and haul around multiple tons of steel just to go get coffee. Another major source of CO2 is electricity and heat. Thankfully solar cells are getting so cheap that within a few decades (if the oil lobby can be defeated) most electricity will probably be solar. But, should we really be living in places where the heat needs to be turned on for 6 months of the year?
Canada is bringing in hundreds of thousands of immigrants per year, and the total population is growing at something like 1 million more people per year. Each one of those people becomes one of the most energy-using people on the planet, partially because the North American lifestyle is wasteful, partially because Canada is insanely cold half the year and requires massive energy for heating. Every new Canadian, whether a birth or an immigrant makes the world’s CO2 footprint much bigger. Maybe Canada should start shrinking and not growing, and the population should move to places where such a massively energy intensive lifestyle is not necessary.
Articles like this always seem like they’re people looking for a way to shift the blame to someone else. This time it’s the billionaires. Other times it has been corporations. People never take responsibility for their own lives.
Im mostly commenting so I can use this to remind myself later to research it, but I wonder which would be better enviromentally? Living in a cold place that requires heating 6 months of the year, or AC?
there are about 3000 billionaires, if they generate a million people’s world of CO2 each, that’s the pollution of 3 billion people!!! about half the world population.
even ignoring their lobbying, just snapping them away Thanos style would mean more co2 saving than eliminating any single industry.
Mary Antoinette them is likely not the solution, better to regulate them and tax them out of existence. or Antoinette then if they keep fighting to kill us all.
if they generate a million people’s world of CO2 each, that’s the pollution of 3 billion people!!!
Which is why I doubt that that’s true. For it to be true, you’d probably have to do some kind of calculation like “if this privately owned company is owned by a billionaire, then assign all CO2 emissions from its entire operations to that one individual”. So, if you eliminated them, you actually wouldn’t eliminate those CO2 emissions. Someone would take over that business and it would continue putting out CO2 as long as someone was buying its products and/or services.
The science is available for you to double check the math and methods. Go do that and show us your findings if you dispute the results instead of baselessly assuming it isn’t true because it doesn’t fit your preconceived assumptions.
It’s likely that the “million times more than the average person” includes the CO2 emissions from their stocks. still, making them scared is the easiest way to stop them from burning the planet where I live.
But you’re not going to make them scared by publishing made up news stories like this. What will make them scared is politicians who they haven’t bought being in power.
We’re getting there. one Mamdani/Kat at a time.
Without billionaires the oil lobby wouldn’t exist
A lot of the “oil lobby” is suburban dwellers who rely on their cars for everything and oppose anything transportation-related that isn’t a subsidy for cars and roads.
Without the oil and motor lobby, normal people wouldn’t drive a car every day.
