Cut that 1% by prohibiting most polluting activities of these people, would cut at maximum 16% of global emission, as stated in the article. As that’s a one-time move, emissions will continue to grow, it will just give some month at best.
Best you will get is them pretending to do their part with some carbon offsetting that isn’t currently working and guilting everyone else into doing their part while making no actual sacrifices to their lifestyle that is so far beyond even the 10% richest people globally.
I get that they aren’t the only group we need to address for climate change but I will be fucked if the majority have to give up nice things while they get to fuck about with no changes when they already have way more than everybody else.
Plus there is the cost of climate change solutions, as a percentage of their wealth implementing climate friendly solutions is peanuts, whereas the bottom of the 10% is significant part of their money.
Take the UK PM, Rishi Sunak. He had a brand new pool put in for his home in his consistency. Rather than using solar heating for the pool as an eco house like Moonstone does he paid to have the grid upgraded so he could have three phase electric installed just to heat his pool. Its about £18k of electric a year to heat his pool, so hes personally added that extra demand when he could and should have been forced to chose an eco friendly option that Moonstone proves works for large UK properties.
Unless you introduce legislation that completely mandates climate friendly options as the only option they simply wont do them.
Hey listen, I know money is tight but, the people of Hawaii need your leftover scraps to put together their lives lost from the fires.
I know, I, Oprah Winfrey, literally own a large portion of the state Hawaii, but come on y’all. I worked hard for my money, you peas-- people know that. So please, donate what you can while me and Dwayne the Rock Johnson fly individual private jets somewhere to film a guilt trippy promo in a move that ultimately protects my assets.
Why would this study measure top 1% based on purchasing power? There is a hillariously large difference between some kenyan making 40k and some american person making 140k. Saying they emit the same is just disingenuous. I would imagine an american in the bottom 10% still has more emissions than a kenyan in the top 10%.
Guaranteed the top 1% of Kenyans produce more emissions than the bottom 60% of Kenyans and the bottom 60% of Americans. One super rich person with a jet can produce literally tons more emissions than a normal person without one. Kenyan elite aren’t somehow less wasteful emitters because their country has overall less emissions.
Except if you actually read the article you would see that in a place like kenya the cut off was 40k for their calculations. I dont remember private jets going for that low. Hence my reaction.
Edit: you can downvote me or alternatively you can just read the article lmao
Just imagine how great for the world planet it would be if international hackers would steal all the wealth of these 1% to give it to the poor.
(as described today here : lemmy.world/post/8502129 )
less than 5% of richest nations wealth in the hands of those under 40 and 2/3rds of us aren't even able to make any signifigant lifestyle choices to change global colapse of life, the planet is controlled by Lich Kings.
Since time immemorial we have done this and it has worked, since all you needed was a rabble of angry people sporting pitchforks marching to the rich man’s house, and he’d have to hire at least half the number of troops to repel you.
Nowadays, we don’t know where the rich live, and we have killing machines so efficient that a single one could flatten a crowd.
To be among the global top 10 percent, you may not need as much money as you think. According to the 2018 Global Wealth Report from Credit Suisse Research Institute, you don’t even need six figures.
A net worth of $93,170 U.S. is enough to make you richer than 90 percent of people around the world, Credit Suisse reports. The institute defines net worth, or “wealth,” as “the value of financial assets plus real assets (principally housing) owned by households, minus their debts.”
More than 102 million people in America are in the 10 percent worldwide, Credit Suisse reports, far more than from any other country.
You need significantly less to be among the global 50 percent: If you have just $4,210 to your name, you’re still richer than half of the world’s residents. And it takes a net worth of $871,320 to join the global 1 percent. More than 19 million Americans qualify, Credit Suisse reports.
Also it’s an extremely dumb take on economics. 93,170 USD doesn’t have the same value globally. You can own an entire factory for 93k in Bangladesh and just get by in NYC - how do you calculate emissions here? So, any statistics should consider regional 1% not global.
Do you think all the modern conveniences we live with are dirt cheap over there?
Flights cost the same. Dish washers cost the same. Smart Phones and Computers cost the same.
Import costs are WAY HIGHER so getting non-local goods is much more expensive and harder.
Building code standards are not the same so odds are you don’t even have a fire detector in your house. You can say goodbye to stable electricity and you probably need to boil your water before you consume it…
Sure you can go outside and buy food for much cheaper - so long as it is locally produced. Those cheap street food vendors though… food safety isn’t really a thing so I sure hope you don’t get sick!
There are so many other factors… quality of life is nowhere near similar. That bangladesh passport aint worth shit. The US passport can get you into 148 countries without a Visa. Bangladesh? 20. The people with wealth do not want the poors in their area. They also want to believe that the poors have it better where they are so that somehow paying them a hundred bucks a month is acceptable for their labor so you can wear another graphic t-shirt or dress that costs $10-20 instead of paying the $80 an American made “living wage worker” identical shirt would cost.
Sadly few people really know how it is outside of their local area.
Nah man you’re just straight up wrong. Money value is relative. I’m a digital Nomad who lives in SEA. I literally moved here for higher quality of life for my income just like thousands of other people. I get the same dollars but the value is drastically different as so is my carbon output.
Tell me how much it costs for you to go on a vacation to singapore.
Are my dollars worth more when I go to where you are in SEA?
the value is ALWAYS the same. The costs where you are are NOT always the same. a dollar is a dollar. A dollar in NYC doesn’t get you as far as a dollar in vietnam.
A 5 million dollar property in NYC might be little more than a glorified closet, but when I sell it I get 5 million dollars. A 5 million dollar property in New Zealand might be a mansion, and when I sell it i’ll get my 5 million dollars back.
5 million dollars buys you 5 million dollars worth of things. Everyone knows it “goes further” in poorer areas but if you want to buy a share of Microsoft, it’s going to be the same price no matter where you are in the world. If you want to buy a RTX 4090 it’s going to be the same price (or HIGHER from import fees). A plane ticket basically costs the same no matter where you are from. A vacation to another country costs the same no matter where you earned your dollars.
You truly do not know the difference between how the rest of the world has it. Have you ever lived in a “third world” country? Ever spend significant time there?
I only looked up the distribution for the last time an article about the top 10% was published and at least here in Germany if you earn the median amount of money you are part of that 10%
Top 1% is 80 million people, and there are a lot more than 80 million people living in western countries. I see your basic point, but the math doesn’t work out.
The actual study claims that top 10% is $41k and accounts for 50% of carbon emissions. No where does it normalize incomes for those from Kenya as the article claims. So these incomes are viewed globally. If you are in the US and make more than $20/hr hours a week, you are top 10%.
$67/hr makes you top 1%.
Others are calling to eat the rich without realizing that the global rich includes low wage earners flipping burgers at McDonald’s (I’m in Boston and minimum wage is $15/hr and an assistant manager can be hired for $22/hr).