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.

9 points

This is the best summary I could come up with:


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.


I’m a bot and I’m open source!

permalink
report
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

It’s a strange accounting method, that almost completely reflects wealth distribution and ignores carbon.

For instance, you might say childhood obesity is a problem, then measure people’s investments in fast food as a measure of their contribution to the problem. And find that it’s the same people at fault, at almost the exact same percentage!

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Wouldn’t insurance be one of the lowest carbon footprints? They don’t really make or manufacture anything, minimal fleet presence (like adjusters cars and what not, not like delivery trucks or semis)?

I could see their investments maybe being problematic by investing in other companies that are heavy polluters, but idk maybe I’m missing something? Seems like they wouldn’t have much of a footprint compared to others at their size and scale.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I’d like to buy carbon emission insurance. If it stays above safe levels, I get paid. If it goes below safe levels, I pay them. They adjust rates offered based on its likelihood. Then they’d have a strong incentive to fund various activities to reduce pollution.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

It’s a stretch to say that because they invest in a company, that they “produce” the greenhouse gases that that company emits.

Yeah, they could invest elsewhere but it’s just disingenuous to say they’re responsible for all those carbon emissions.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

I can see how it’s strange on the surface, but ultimately the carbon emissions wouldn’t be there if the polluting activity was not funded. So to whom would the carbon emissions be attributed otherwise? Just the CEO?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

You could blame the CEO, the employees, the customers, the investors, the city, state, or country, the regulators, the elected officials, etc.

Then there’s the choice of what attribute of those people to use for the accounting. Is it their wealth, their race, their religion, their height? Maybe it’s because they live in cities, or don’t.

It’s an almost arbitrary choice that reflects the value system of the person creating the report — an effort to score points, not solve the problem. I worry that climate action is often hindered by people trying to loop their other pet issues in. Let’s focus on reducing carbon in the atmosphere, please.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

If they invest and demand the biggest profit by countering greenification policies so they get more money as shareholder, then they definitely are responsible for the companies pollution.

permalink
report
parent
reply
61 points

The US subsidizes fossil fuels to the tune of 600B per year. You pay for pollution with your taxes.

permalink
report
reply
-20 points

I imagine a huge chunk of the rest 60% is CCP’s doing.

permalink
report
reply
8 points

Nice work displaying your ignorance

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

29% incase you were wondering

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

I know a lot of folks have axes to grind, but you really don’t have to pull out your whetstone everywhere.

permalink
report
parent
reply
100 points

Every day we’re here just to learn billionaires & families should be crushed and their wealth redistributed amongst third world countries.

permalink
report
reply
16 points

That would just make other billionaires somewhere else. The problem is the system not the people

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

He did not say “once”. I think they’re suggesting a systematic approach. I periodic Purge if you will. Like some shitty movie.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

The moment they go above a certain amount and still act shitty, they are food.

I wouldn’t care about rich people if they just paid their workers, paid their taxes, looked at reducing the pollution of their companies, didn’t lobby against the public interests, and just were all around swell people.

The problem is that they aren’t, none of them are.

Either they become like that from being rich, or only awful people are moralless enough to become rich. But there isn’t a single good rich person.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Yup, the problem is firmly the system, but suggesting a worldwide change to socialism/communism is less “palatable” and believable by the average person.

So “eat the rich” is a decent compromise for a comment not intended to approach any sort of complex answer, while still being a move in a better direction than suggesting things to continue as they are.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Suggesting a replacement system is infinitely more palatable to me than another Reign of Terror followed by (presumably) the same mistakes. Revolutionary defense is fine, but we don’t need bloody revenge.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Why advocate for structural changes when we can meme fedpost about a violent solution?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Redistributing the wealth of billionaires is already part of a good structural change, it’ll remove from them power they’d use to continue the exploitation of the people. You can substitute “crush” by destitute and incarcerate them if you’d prefer, as long as the wealth isn’t on the hands of the few anymore.

permalink
report
parent
reply
33 points

Anyone else just feel like we should eat the rich?

permalink
report
reply
14 points

I think it’s way overdue.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Won’t stop the meat producing companies or the oil companies from existing - that just moves the emissions of them to their heirs.

That metric is really bad - as long as there’s demand for gas or meat those emissions need to be attached to someone - and attaching them to the owner just takes away all responsibility from everyone and tells them that they don’t have to change anything.

If BP would Stop producing oil tomorrow the price would probably jump but then other companies would step in and fill that gap and nothing would’ve changed pollution wise.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I’m not advocating for it, but I will say there are no Romanovs around, so it’s not 100% that it’s always the heir next.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-9 points

Envy and jealousy will get you nowhere in life. Strive to do better. Maybe join the upper classes through hard work and sacrifice?

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

Thanks for the suggestion I just became a billionaire

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

We already work and strife more than those upper classes ever would in their entire life.

How about those upper classes pay their due taxes instead of using loopholes to be a leach on society?

Either that or we eat them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

The wealthy do pay a lot of taxes. How about cutting spending instead? Oh…THAT. Never seems to come up though.

Curious also: are you really going to eat rich people? For dinner? Then what? Keep eating your way down until you reach the middle class? Envy and jealousy are a burden, my friend.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

“You don’t understand. Ferengi workers don’t want to stop the exploitation. We want to find a way to become the exploiters.”

— Rom

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

On one hand, yes, on the other, eating shit isn’t very appealing.

permalink
report
parent
reply

World News

!worldnews@lemmy.ml

Create post

News from around the world!

Rules:

  • Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc

  • No NSFW content

  • No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc

Community stats

  • 6K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 125K

    Comments