745
submitted 1 year ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] blazera@kbin.social 40 points 1 year ago

So, the study theyre citing is pretty flawed. It starts with an assumption that emissions strictly correlate with income, it doesnt actually break down or analyze emissions sources. It just takes the total emissions of a country and divides that up by income. Its economic analysis. But that's not how emissions work. A million dollar car isnt gonna emit 100 times more than a 10k car. The cows for their wagyu steaks arent producing more methane than cows ending up at Mcdonalds.

The wealthy absolutely emit more through flights and boats. Someone with a private jet is likely emitting hundreds of times more emissions than a regular person. But theres not that many private jets. Ban all private jets, but it wont even register on global emissions totals.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 28 points 1 year ago

There's a ton of academic research showing the correlation between income and emissions.

There are also a ton of actions which are necessary to get to zero emissions but not sufficient. Banning private jets is one.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Banning private jets is so far down the long-tail of emissions-lowering strategies that it's barely even worth considering. Heck, it might even be bad to consider it because doing so might serve to distract from the things we actually need to do.

The problem isn't just billionaire-level income correlated with billionaire-level emissions; the problem is American middle-class-level income correlated with American middle-class-level emissions, too! We -- typical, normal Americans -- are the global rich people the article's talking about. The "big barrier to stabilizing the climate" isn't the robber-baron who doesn't want to give up his private jet; it's the suburban soccer mom who doesn't want to trade her ~~minivan~~ crossover SUV for a cargo bike.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 13 points 1 year ago

It's both, and having billionaires cut their incredibly high emissions makes it politically possible to get the rest of the population on board

[-] grue@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah, but that assumes you can succeed in forcing the billionaires to cut their incredibly high emissions. I'm not sure we can afford the time spent picking that fight.

[-] PaupersSerenade@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

Doesn't want to is not the same as doesn't have the proper infrastructure to support a no car life style. You've been pretty active in the comments saying that it really isn't the 1% (or the companies owned by said %). Everyone can do better, in every conceivable facet of life, but it doesn't seem productive to me to belittle a family trying to live the life they've been taught to lead.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If your attitude is that explaining that change is necessary is "belittling," you're a perfect example of the "big barrier" the article is talking about. In particular...

doesn’t have the proper infrastructure to support a no car life style

...what have you, personally, been doing to change that? I, for one, am active in my local community organizations trying to get bike infrastructure built, parking minimums reduced, and single-family zones changed to allow higher density.

We don't have the luxury of sitting around being offended when called out on our inaction anymore.

[-] PaupersSerenade@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago

Sorry, I just don't agree that the private jets should stay. I'm glad you're part of that 10% you've been bragging about so hard, and feel free to do what you can as I will. But I'm not, and I need to make enough money to pay rent and eat.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Sorry, I just don’t agree that the private jets should stay.

I didn't say they should! What I said is that we've got way more important things to worry about, and getting hung up on minutiae like that could be counterproductive.

I’m glad you’re part of that 10% you’ve been bragging about so hard

You think that's bragging?! You've missed the point so hard I'm not even sure how to respond to that.

My income isn't high and never has been (my household has rarely even hit the US median). My wealth is only relatively high for my age because I'm extremely frugal. And that's also not a brag -- that's just me giving the context to explain that when I say even I'm part of the problem, I mean damn near EVERY-FUCKING-BODY in America is part of the problem! I don't care how poor you think you are; on a global scale you're dead wrong.

[-] mriormro@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

The focus should be on industry, fabrication, production, and energy generation. That's the largest impact you can have.

Regulating people's lives, especially people who already feel pressed upon given their contextual poverty/inequality is not how anything is going to happen. In fact, you'll probably be exactly where we are now: mostly no one giving a shit or doing anything about it.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

The focus should be on ending the suburban American car-centric lifestyle. That's what's fucking up the planet, whether you want to admit it or not.

[-] mriormro@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

You focus on carbon and energy reduction of the sectors I mentioned in my previous comment. You don't stop this by telling Jane from Oswego to stop buying plastic novelty straws. You stop this by disincentivizing the production of plastic novelty straws as a whole. This is an issue of overproduction as much as it's an issue of overconsumption.

Individual people are not the vector that will subvert this crisis, unfortunately.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

WTF do plastic straws have to do with anything? I'm talking about doing things like changing the zoning code.

[-] mriormro@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Plastic straws are a stand in for commodity goods.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

No, the study's methodology is fine. Although you're correct to point out that the million-dollar car doesn't pollute much more than the $10K car and the wagyu cow doesn't fart more than the McDonald's-destined cow, what you don't realize is that it really is even the $10K car and the McDonalds cow that are the problem! We're not just talking about billionaires here; we're talking about the global 10%, which starts at surprisingly low income or net worth and includes most "middle-class" Americans!

You are part of the problem. I am part of the problem. It's not just Bezos and shit who need to change; it's us.

[-] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 year ago

Mostly it is bigger houses, driving bigger cars, flying more to vacations and well buying more in general. We are talking about thte top 10% globally here. They are not crazy billionaires and most do not own private jets or boats.

this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2023
745 points (100.0% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5222 readers
537 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS