America’s wealthiest people are also some of the world’s biggest polluters – not only because of their massive homes and private jets, but because of the fossil fuels generated by the companies they invest their money in.
America’s wealthiest people are also some of the world’s biggest polluters – not only because of their massive homes and private jets, but because of the fossil fuels generated by the companies they invest their money in.
This is a piss poor metric. It is not what these people personally emit but what they emit by all the companies that they may own. Even though those companies produce products you and me consume.
In other words if I am a massive farmer and in the ten percent wealth category, my carbon footprint includes all the food produced and you consume from my farm.
The picture they paint in this article, of the ultra rich with their private jets and yachts, does not align with the statistic presented in the title.
the wealthiest 10% in the US, households making more than about $178,000
I'm sure many of you know people in this group. Two adults each making 90k a year is enough to break into the 10%. And clearly they're not flying around in private jets.
but because of the fossil fuels generated by the companies they invest their money in.
Lemme go ahead and roll my eyes here. Yes, American Airlines produces a significant percentage of the world's greenhouse emissions. But they burn that fuel for the passengers, not just for the benefit of shareholders. Same with ExxonMobil, BP, etc.
Consumption is what drives pollution. Investments to profit off of that consumption is secondary.
As much as I understand the hate towards rich people governments are just as much at fault for subsidising, directly funding and giving land to those companies in the first place for people to be able to make money off them.
America’s wealthiest people are also some of the world’s biggest polluters – not only because of their massive homes and private jets, but because of the fossil fuels generated by the companies they invest their money in.
That gave a carbon footprint for each dollar of economic activity in the US, which the researchers linked to households using population survey data that showed the industries people work for and their income from wages and investments.
The report also identified “super-emitters.” They are almost exclusively among the wealthiest top 0.1% of Americans, concentrated in industries such as finance, insurance and mining, and produce around 3,000 tons of carbon pollution a year.
Kimberly Nicholas, associate professor of sustainability science at Lund University in Sweden, who was not involved in the report, said the study helps reveal how closely income, especially from investments, is tied to planet-heating pollution.
Sometimes when people talk about ways to tackle the climate crisis, they bring up population control, said Mark Paul, a political economist at Rutgers University who was also not involved in the study.
Globally, the planet-heating pollution produced by billionaires is a million times higher than the average person outside the world’s wealthiest 10%, according to a report last year from the nonprofit Oxfam.
Feel like some people here are being emotionally invested thinking this study is a sort of a blame game encouraging us to berate the wealthy individuals for their investments. I can't say whether the researchers had this in mind or not but from reading the study it looks like an aim of devising this metric was to figure out a strategy of investment taxation to deter wealthy people from investing in industries that are ravaging the planet:
By linking GHG emissions with the incomes it enables our work has quantified the scale of emissions inequality in U.S. society and the extreme and growing concentration of emissions among very wealthy households. It also offers some suggestions on how accelerated decarbonization and revenue generation might occur, such as an income or shareholder-based carbon tax that reflects the GHG intensity of one’s income sources or financial assets. This is distinct from consumer facing carbon taxes that rely on individuals decarbonizing the economy by shifting their consumption to less GHG intensive goods and services and thereby encouraging companies to respond to their new preferences. A consumer-facing approach assumes individual consumers have the knowledge, financial resources, and agency to shift spending and the power to alter corporate decision making on the GHG intensity of their supply chain and operations. An alternative income or shareholder facing carbon tax puts pressure on executives and large shareholders (i.e. those with the most economic and corporate power) to act in their own self-interest and decarbonize their supply chain and operations in order to reduce taxes on their compensation and investments. Recent work has calculated that a climate inspired wealth tax could indeed be an effective tool to raise revenue for adaptation and mitigation efforts [52, 53].
That's a complicated situation because if not rich people, we'll see other rich people in the same situation, like I don't think world's biggest companies will stop existing anytime soon, even if healthy eco alternatives get bigger investiment in the future.
Hey, good news. If we do this one neat little trick we can cut 40% of the planet-heating pollution and guess what? We've had a green solution for it for centuries.
And I'll wager my left eye there'll still be western capitalist-sympathizers(because they themselves are not capitalists, as they own no capital nor any means of production, mass or otherwise) having themselves a jolly old wankfest about how we shouldn't be having a good long think about the Robespierre method
Every time I see such evaluations I get this picture of an economically illiterate person just making assumptions from some statistics they are unable to comprehend. A bit like with electrical engineering.
And in any case the useful metric would be pollution per dollar (or per joule) spent by a person, not totals. I don't think I have to explain why, it's obvious.
What’s the Buzz About?
Hey there! So, have you heard of Go High Level? If not, let's break it down. Imagine juggling multiple apps for marketing. Sounds chaotic, right? That's where Go High Level comes in. It’s like that friend who has a solution for everything. Whether you're trying to create a cool sales funnel or shoot out an email campaign, this platform has got your back. The best part? They let you test drive everything with a 14-day free trial. It's like trying out a new car but for your business. And if you ever get stuck, their support team is just a click away. Pretty sweet, huh?
So, How Much Does It Cost?
Alright, let's talk money. Go High Level has 3 main plans. There's the Agency Starter Plan, which is perfect if you’re just starting or have a small business. It's packed with all the essential tools, and it’s pretty affordable. But if you're looking to go big, the Agency Unlimited Plan is your best bet. It’s like the VIP pass at a concert, giving you access to everything without any limits. Not sure about committing? Remember that 14-day free trial I mentioned? It’s a great way to take it for a spin without any strings attached. Lastly they offer a Pro plan that includes "SaaS mode". Where you can white label the product under your brand. Amazing!
Why Everyone's Talking About It:
In a world full of fancy digital tools, Go High Level is like that all-in-one Swiss Army knife. No need to jump between apps, because it's got everything under one roof. Whether you’re a newbie or a pro marketer, it's super user-friendly. It's not just about launching cool campaigns; they make sure you understand how well they’re doing with top-notch analytics. For marketing agencies, there's even a white-label feature, so you can slap on your brand and impress your clients.