Richest 1% account for more carbon emissions than poorest 66%, report says | Hacker News Reader

Richest 1% account for more carbon emissions than poorest 66%, report says

theguardian.com

93 pointsdoener41 comments

I’m all in favour of lowering emissions for the 1% but it’s a strange place to draw the line when their calculations suggest ~70% of emissions come from “the Everyman” that is 1st-33rd percentile. Cheap and plentiful access to lower carbon technology will be 4x the impact of focusing on the top percentile alone, even if it doesn’t fit the narrative.

Personally, I believe that those with the capability to do so are obliged to make ecological purchasing decisions (I hold myself to this standard) so I’m not trying to pass the buck either.

Good luck convincing the proletariate to lower their emissions when they can see the great and good living it large.

Personally, I call BS.

The report itself is fine, but the article is misleading, sort of implying that it's those billionaire's lifestyles that are ruining the climate for everyone else. But only in the end, it outlines, _how_ they do it, arguably with less attention than it deserves.

Having read the report, the overwhelming proportion of CO2 is generated with so-called "Polluting shares", basically, stock in polluting companies.

Guess what, that means we need to adress those companies' CO2 output, not private jets and yachts. That makes solving said problem a whole lot more complicated than eating the rich, though.

Those are out of sight out of mind companies As long as those rare earth mines are in Africa and they are assembled in China it doesn't count as environmental damage. It's only if those mines or factories are in our country do we need to shut them down for the sake of the Earth

Africa produces 0.32% or the annual supply of rare earth metals, and nearly all of it comes from Madagascar, and it is a Chinese owned mine.

Banning all civilian air travel until the airplane meet the efficiency standards the trucks junked in Junker Clunker already met would be a start.

1. So no ban? SF to NY is about 2900 miles. Wikipedia says "Generally, trade-in vehicles must get a weighted combined average rating of 18 or fewer miles per gallon" to qualify for the Car Allowance Rebate System. The EPA says there's about 8.9kg of co2 per gallon of gas, which means driving such a distance would emit approximately 1434kg of carbon. On the other hand Google flights says the same trip by direct flight only emits around 400kg, depending on the airline.

2. I'm not really sure why a ban is needed when mandated sequestration will have the same effect, and won't kill half the travel industry.

> The EPA says there's about 8.9kg of co2 per gallon of gas, which means driving such a distance would emit approximately 1434kg of carbon. On the other hand Google flights says the same trip by direct flight only emits around 400kg, depending on the airline.

There is no law concerning the emission of CO2 from old trucks. Look into the laws governing emissions and fuel economy on old trucks. What's good dirty for old trucks is good for shiny new aircraft.

> I'm not really sure why a ban is needed when mandated sequestration will have the same effect, and won't kill half the travel industry.

Say you're in the 1% without saying your in the 1% by claiming aviation is "half the travel industry."

I should have said: until commerical aircraft meet ALL fuel economy and emissions standards that old trucks have had to meet in their lifetimes.

If your jet engine does not have a catalytic converter, it must not fly. What's good for old trucks is good for aircraft.

If for airplane burns leaded fuel, it must not fly.

If your airplane does not meet CAFE standards, it must not fly without paying fines.

Here are a few of the standards: https://www.epa.gov/emission-standards-reference-guide/epa-e...

The study doesn't blame the pollution on jets. It says it is from industry, and since the rich own stock in companies, they blame the companies pollution on the rich who own equity. dumb and deceptive article

"The corporate shares of many super-rich are highly polluting." this article is deceptive. What is the suggested solution here, those companies shouldn't exist? If the companies were owned by the average person would that somehow make them pollute less? This article opens with a picture of a private jet like that is the cause of this pollution, that their extravagance is polluting the planet.

"‘Polluter elite’ are plundering the planet to point of destruction" I guess I should have realized this article had problems from that first line.

"Despite being massive, the personal consumption of the super-rich is dwarfed by emissions resulting from their investments in companies.17 Investments of the top 1% are estimated to account for between 50% and 70% of their emissions.18"

Their source is equally bad, and I have no faith even in that number. I see double counting too, if you blame pollution for buying a car on the customer, and blame that same pollution on the person who owns the shares of the company that made it, you are double counting.

They should look at net pollutants produced. If someone "emits" X pollutants per year, but they cure the pollutant ebola, the two numbers should be subtracted to get the individual's net contribution to the planet.

Indeed, just like committing homicide and having a baby cancels out.

The richest species probably accounts for more carbon emissions than every other species combined too.

.... obviously.....

Last week over the span of 2 days at least 106 private jets carrying 2-12 people each flew in to Las Vegas - rich folk heading in to watch F1. I’d like to see Democrats ask their wealthy donors to give that up.

> I’d like to see Democrats ask their wealthy donors to give that up.

What about Republican's wealthy donors, or Green's wealthy donors? Or are you suggesting this is just a problem with the others?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com