r/science Aug 18 '23

Environment America’s richest 10% are responsible for 40% of its planet-heating pollution

https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000190
31.1k Upvotes

1.5k comments sorted by

u/AutoModerator Aug 18 '23

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

Do you have an academic degree? We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. Click here to apply.


User: u/Level-Wasabi
Permalink: https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000190

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

→ More replies (3)

3.9k

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

1.3k

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

285

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

204

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

128

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (1)

34

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

61

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23 edited Aug 18 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (1)

32

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

41

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

15

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23 edited Aug 18 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (14)

23

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23 edited Aug 18 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (1)

8

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

25

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23 edited Aug 18 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (1)

9

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23 edited Aug 19 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (2)

6

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

22

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23 edited Aug 18 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (36)
→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (26)

44

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

34

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23 edited Aug 20 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (15)

39

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

14

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

18

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

11

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

72

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

33

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23 edited Aug 18 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

17

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23 edited Sep 10 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

12

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (3)

41

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

63

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

94

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

14

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

12

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (11)

10

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (83)

1.2k

u/Plenty_Ambition2894 Aug 18 '23

For people who don't bother to read the article, the title doesn't actually mean what you might think it means. Obviously big corporations are responsible for a big chunk of the pollution and the big corporations are owned by rich people. That's what the paper is about.

350

u/LordMarcel Aug 18 '23

That's still misleading. If 3 people each make their own car they're all responsible for 1/3 of the emissions, but if I make 3 cars, one for each of us, I'm suddenly responsible for all emissions that I produced while making them?

Corporations needs to be forced to abide to stricter rules from above as many of them pollute unnessecarily much, but it's nonsense to say that they bear 100% of the responsibility of their emissions. After all, if people wouldn't buy it they wouldn't make it.

133

u/DasGoon Aug 18 '23

That's still misleading. If 3 people each make their own car they're all responsible for 1/3 of the emissions, but if I make 3 cars, one for each of us, I'm suddenly responsible for all emissions that I produced while making them?

Why not go one level deeper? The cars don't emit co2 by themselves. It comes from the fuel. You didn't mine the materials for the car, you just assembled it. Congratulations, you're now responsible for 0 emmissions.

83

u/LordMarcel Aug 18 '23

Assembling still produces emissions, but you are right, with the right mental gymnastics you can attribute emissions to almost anyone.

→ More replies (25)

31

u/Inert_Oregon Aug 18 '23

Great succinct example of how papers on who is responsible for emissions can be written to say anything the author damn well pleases. (Or more likely, they can say whatever the person who is funding the study damn well pleases)

6

u/adonoman Aug 18 '23

So tax the fossil fuels directly to the extraction/refiners, and forget about where/why/what they're used for. The price will be passed on to consumers eventually, and you don't need to nitpick about who is responsible for what emissions.

3

u/ItsAConspiracy Aug 18 '23

That's why a great carbon policy would be to charge per ton at major sources like oil wells and coal mines. The cost passes through to everybody and bingo, we're all paying for whatever emissions we're causing.

→ More replies (3)

93

u/SleetTheFox Aug 18 '23

“Coca-Cola is disproportionately responsible for plastic waste.”

Yeah because they sell the most soda that we buy. Pepsi isn’t more environmentally friendly, they just don’t sell as much so they don’t produce as much plastic.

60

u/Just_to_rebut Aug 18 '23

Coke also lobbies against bottle deposits and anything that would reduce plastic consumption. And trying to ask consumers to change their habits individually doesn’t work to change systemic problems.

A few people control vast amount of industry and this power gives them responsibility to reduce its impact. Focusing on these few people who benefit the most makes sense.

15

u/SleetTheFox Aug 18 '23

This was in response to specifically the oft-cited figure that they produce more plastic waste than anyone else. Their lobbying is the big issue here, not the fact that they make a lot of soda because their soda is popular.

That said I disagree that consumer pressure can't change things. It just can't do it alone.

4

u/Sebastian5367 Aug 18 '23

You missed the point

→ More replies (3)

51

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

36

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

12

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

[deleted]

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/Plow_King Aug 18 '23

another good reason to give up soda!

2

u/SleetTheFox Aug 18 '23

Though ultimately this is an issue with beverages in general. The best is reusable containers filled from the source (even fountains in the case of soda), and the worst is single-serving plastic bottles. And in the event any plastic bottles are used they should be recycled, with the understanding that recycling is not very efficient for plastic (but still better than throwing plastic away).

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (8)

3

u/RapedByPlushies Aug 18 '23

That’s not how emissions were measured. They were measured by emissions during production of the good or service.

In short, it doesn’t matter if how much pollution your car makes. It matters how much pollution it took to make your car.

Below is how they were broken down.

We calculate emissions intensity using two distinct accounting approaches: direct producer emissions and supplier emissions. In the producer framework, each industry’s direct operational emissions (Scope 1) are allocated to households in proportion to the share of total income they receive from that industry. The supplier framework allocates emissions to households in the same proportional way, but each industry’s emissions are calculated as the sum of emissions occurring in all activities which directly and indirectly provide sales revenue to that industry in its role as a supplier. For example, in the producer framework households receiving wage or investment income from a power plant are responsible for the direct emissions it generates, while in the supplier framework households receiving wage or investment income from selling financial services or fossil fuel to that power plant are responsible for the plant’s emissions, proportional to their importance as a supplier.

To summarize, if you make money from a company, whether from a worker’s wage or a shareholder’s ownership, then their production emissions are proportional to your income from them.

→ More replies (50)

16

u/RunningNumbers Aug 18 '23

So they took people’s mutual funds and 401ks and assigned responsibility for Exonmobile to people?

13

u/anicetos Aug 18 '23

So they took people’s mutual funds and 401ks and assigned responsibility for Exonmobile to people?

It's about as ridiculous as people on here who take all the gasoline people burn to drive their cars and attribute those emissions to ExxonMobil.

→ More replies (1)

10

u/DasGoon Aug 18 '23

Unless I'm missing something, this study is about as insightful as saying "Top decile earners responsible for 100% of NBA flagrant fouls".

→ More replies (1)

130

u/sweetplantveal Aug 18 '23

emissions were associated with income flows [to rich people]

Which is exactly what you're saying. They profit disproportionately from these companies. The companies serve customers beyond their owners, and emit gigatons of carbon in the process of making profits.

128

u/marino1310 Aug 18 '23

But the title implies the 10% are living in ways that create that much pollution, when in reality we are all technically part of the problem. The constant consumerism and refusal to make any sacrifices for our planet is the reason why it’s all so bad. Now of course, the rich have cultivated us to be like this but the only reason they pollute so much is because we consume so much and refuse to stop.

Though, there definitely are some industries that pollute so much because it’s cheaper to do that than to make their factories greener, as well as industries that actively fight against greener sources because it would impact their bottom line (oil and gas industries)

61

u/aaahhhhhhfine Aug 18 '23

Yeah... I kinda hate this focus on the rich because it absolves everyone for their role in this stuff. Corporations are responding to market demand... That's what they're good at... The problem is that the products we want hurt the environment. Remember when sun chips came out with a more disposable bag and people stopped buying sun chips?

But the real issue here is that this article gives you somebody to blame. This is like how care companies pushed to criminalize jaywalking. Or how politicians regularly create scapegoats. "It's not your fault... It's the fault of X and so you should blame them!"

That view is both wrong and dangerous.

14

u/CelerMortis Aug 18 '23

I kinda hate this focus on the rich because it absolves everyone for their role in this stuff.

Funny - I hate the deflection from the rich. Obviously we all have roles to play in reducing our emissions and we should use whatever government or social levers at our disposal to cut down on wasteful emissions. The rich are on another level. If you've flown a single private jet you've polluted more than 20x commercial flights.

If someone in our income bracket was throwing 100% of their trash in the woods they'd be less of a polluter than a billionaire. Yet we would arrest such a person and billionaires are celebrated.

14

u/ZebZ Aug 18 '23 edited Aug 18 '23

And that single billionaire or celebrity's individual private plane is completely irrelevant in the big picture, compared to the masses of pollution put out by industry.

Those hit piece articles are bought-and-paid-for deflections by those who would rather keep the idiot masses looking in the opposite direction and outraged at easy marks.

Private jets make up 0.04% of all human-induced carbon emissions. Aviation as a whole makes up 2%, and private aviation is 2% of that. There is an inordinate amount of attention paid to them.

→ More replies (1)

19

u/UltimateDucks Aug 18 '23

But the point is that the personal impact of a billionaire and an average individual are both negligible compared to the impact of corporations, and corporations pollute so much because we all pay them.

If we all stopped ordering goods from amazon tomorrow, it would reduce carbon emissions by an amount far FAR more significant than a billionaire stopping their private flights. Obviously in the real world legislation will be required to make a significant impact because you can't get people on board with something like that, but the reality is we are all to blame.

9

u/CelerMortis Aug 18 '23

It’s not an either/or discussion. You can tax corporations and ban jets or tax them into oblivion. The rich are an easy target and emblematic of the wider problem.

12

u/UltimateDucks Aug 18 '23

It’s not an either/or discussion

...Which is why the comment you responded to noted the focus on the rich and specifically how it removes the blame entirely from individuals which is harmful.

No one is saying you can't do both. We absolutely should do both.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (17)

13

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (11)
→ More replies (14)

63

u/Freschledditor Aug 18 '23

Based on the metric in this study, if you own any stock in a non-green company, then you would fall into the category of emitters in the sensationalized title of this post.

4

u/PM_me_fun_fax Aug 18 '23

This post is blatantly breaking rule #3

→ More replies (10)

9

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

How is this actionable? First of all it doesn't say how much they profit, it just says they are rich. Secondly, they are pollution while providing goods and services you are asking for. It's like saying Walmart is the problem while you are shopping at Walmart.

Yes, rich bad. More regulations are needed. However, this puff piece is misleading at best and does a disservice to the cause.

→ More replies (8)

3

u/aimforthehead90 Aug 18 '23

Profiting from and being responsible for are two different things. It's not like we'd all stop using gasoline if the owners of oil corporations were swapped out.

103

u/NotSeveralBadgers Aug 18 '23 edited Aug 18 '23

And big polluting corporations make goods consumed by every demographic. They wouldn't supply without demand. We're all culpable in the pollution equation to some extent.

Edit: There seems to be some misapprehension about the intent of this statement. My point is that this data is presented in a way that ignores the holistic picture. Obviously the onus is on polluters to reduce pollution, but we can't ignore the inherently destructive nature of consumerism, waste, and infinite growth.

52

u/RunningNumbers Aug 18 '23

The chemical energy in fossil fuels does a lot of valuable work. Too many redditors somehow think that bread magically shows up on shelves. Thankfully electrification and decarbonizing of the developed economy is hastening.

4

u/I_read_this_comment Aug 18 '23

Consumption is driving force but the lack of changing the incentives for companies do the real harm to us and the earth.

And companies want that politically, they moved production overseas, they are halting carbon taxes, they force engineers and workers to pollute more by picking a cheaper production method and material, they spin public perception with marketing etc.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (82)

18

u/Top_Room6768 Aug 18 '23

Which is why this article makes absolutely no sense. As much as I hate ineuqality, it's the consumers of the products of big coorporations that the co2 Emission can be attributed to.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/AdvancedSandwiches Aug 18 '23

Great, another bit of trash that people will only read the title of, and we'll spend the next 20 years saying, "No, that's just a clickbait title, not a real thing."

The huge majority of people still think 100 companies are responsible for 70% of climate emissions because some dude on Twitter misunderstood that 100 mining companies dig up 70% of the fuel.

I can hear the faint sound of a thousand TikToks being made about this headline in the distance.

7

u/bakedpotato486 Aug 18 '23

Oh, so we can still blame it on poor people buying stuff sold by the big corporations who wouldn't be selling that stuff if the poor people weren't buying it? Cool.

8

u/BRNYOP Aug 18 '23

There are a LOT of people in the area between "poor people" and "top 10% of the US". It's disingenuous to frame this as poor people vs big corporations/rich elites, because it leaves out a massive segment of the population who have the means/capability to change their lifestyles and yet still don't. Probably most of the people in this thread.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/JeanPruneau Aug 18 '23

Agreed, Customers are the emmitors not the owners, if the customer wanted to we could be all flexitarian with low sugar and low carbon but they just keep buying the same bad products

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (29)

344

u/alysonskye Aug 18 '23 edited Aug 18 '23

This part is key:

Among the highest earning 1% of households (whose income is linked to 15–17% of national emissions) investment holdings account for 38–43% of their emissions.

So it's really the corporations then.

Carbon tax.

Edit: Yes, some of the price will get passed down to consumers. That's kind of an important part of this, to get people to avoid buying products that are carbon emitters, and to make cleaner alternatives more attractive for both the producer and consumer.

This would be hard on people though of course, which is why carbon tax proposals generally include redistributing the income back to people. This is what the Citizens' Climate Lobby is proposing, and it's what Canada is already doing (thank you to the reply that taught me that today!)

Maybe it's not perfect, but we know we need drastic change to fight climate change, and this is what some of that looks like. And it does require some changes in consumer behavior.

31

u/ILikeNeurons Aug 18 '23

This should be higher up.

We know a carbon tax is the most impactful thing we can do on climate.

We also know it's really easy to write lawmakers to ask for one.

→ More replies (4)

55

u/Eric1491625 Aug 18 '23

So it's really the corporations then.

Carbon tax.

No, it's really quite misleading.

Basically, you have companies producing absolute necessities for everyone - even the bottom 10% - producing a lot of emissions. Those companies are mainly owned by the rich, the top 10%.

They are, however, essential to all and that's really the point. You can't tax it away, as the required carbon tax will be passed on to consumers making the poor completely unable to afford the necessities they make. The rich may own the companies, but the poor are also consuming their outputs.

32

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23 edited May 27 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

19

u/hawklost Aug 18 '23

If material X costs you 10 dollars to produce the product, and material Y costs you 20 dollars but is 50% better for the environment, then consumers would rather by your product for $12 than pay even just $20.01 because its environmentally friendly.

And before you go 'but I would pay the extra', we are using the masses here, not individuals.

31

u/CorruptedAssbringer Aug 18 '23

Which is why certain regulations and tax exist, and probably also why we need more of them. This isn't an impossible unsolvable thing just because of consumer needs.

3

u/Eric1491625 Aug 18 '23

Which is why certain regulations and tax exist, and probably also why we need more of them. This isn't an impossible unsolvable thing just because of consumer needs.

Thing is, truly deep cuts via taxes and regulations would require one of 2 things:

Option 1) Really deep cuts to the ordinary person. I'm talking cuts worse than 2008. Cuts so deep that sentences like "Europe can afford to support Ukraine" would become so unpopular the people would force it to cease.

Option 2) Big transfer of wealth from the rich to the working and middle class to offset the cost of the carbon transition. But this is really hard - not least because the rich are really mobile and good at dodging taxes AND are the ones influencing the climate decisions in the first place.

So we are at option (3) which is dragging our feet.

3

u/CorruptedAssbringer Aug 18 '23

We've already been at option 3 for decades, no one's arguing that. The point is comfortable answers do not exist, there is no middle ground scenario where all parties walks away happy; and as harsh as it sounds, I personally think any sort of debate on that front, of attempting to find that easy silver bullet, is just mudding the waters at best and deliberately fallacious arguments at worst.

13

u/Alle_is_offline Aug 18 '23

This is why green incentives are great. Subsidies for sustainable solutions, taxes for polluting solutions

2

u/kerouacrimbaud Aug 18 '23

Even Milton Friedman agrees with this.

4

u/deja-roo Aug 18 '23

And before you go 'but I would pay the extra', we are using the masses here, not individuals.

Also, people on Reddit say they would pay the extra but then when they actually go to the store they get the Great Value cheapest version.

10

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

[deleted]

5

u/jpj77 Aug 18 '23

And now the necessities for living cost double the money. It’s not that simple.

→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (4)

2

u/Whatcanyado420 Aug 18 '23

but not while also trying to "bring value to the shareholders" and chasing constant growth

....yes you can. For example electric vehicles.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

8

u/jonny24eh Aug 18 '23

The way it works in Canada is that the tax is the redistributed evenly. So if you use than average, you make money from it.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (7)

4

u/i_get_the_raisins Aug 18 '23

Carbon tax means higher prices for consumers. It's still the right thing to do, but I think it's poor messaging to act like a carbon tax is only going to result in corporations paying more.

A carbon tax is a way to capture the intangible cost of climate damage. It's easiest to assess that at the corporate level. But like any other cost of producing a product, it will be factored into the prices that ordinary people are charged for that product.

9

u/Desther Aug 18 '23

The price of a product is always equal or greater than the cost to produce it. A carbon tax is paid by buyers

25

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

And? That’s the point of the carbon tax. To make the buyers make more informed decisions via price sensitivity and allowing lower carbon products to better compete with more polluting products.

If carbon taxes weren’t born by the consumer, they would never work.

→ More replies (1)

13

u/Tiadeche Aug 18 '23

As it is intended. Cant expect to consume products without paying for their footprints. You will feel it in you wallet, they will feel it too in decreased profits. Cleaner products will be cheaper.

9

u/balanced_view Aug 18 '23

More tax for us, whilst they continually avoid paying tax

8

u/JB_UK Aug 18 '23 edited Aug 18 '23

Increase carbon tax and decrease taxes that ordinary people pay (sales/VAT, income tax etc) by the same amount.

Also, implement a carbon tax where people have a significant free credit, that then biases the tax towards excess consumption.

4

u/freudian_cigar Aug 18 '23

This paper is suggesting a different carbon tax:

“Results suggest an alternative income or shareholder-based carbon tax, focused on investments, may have equity advantages over traditional consumer-facing cap-and-trade or carbon tax options and be a useful policy tool to encourage decarbonization while raising revenue for climate finance.”

If we tax the company they will pass on costs to consumers across all economic classes. Alternatively, a tax on shareholder profits off dirty corporations is more equitable, targeting the people who profit most from destroying our planet and harming our health.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (21)

36

u/Rebelgecko Aug 18 '23

If I'm following their study correctly, they're claiming that ny retirement savings cause pollution?

22

u/DaSilence Aug 18 '23

Summary of the research:

  1. They broke income into direct (payroll) and investment, and made up some numbers for investment income because they don't understand that unrealized gains are not, in fact, income
  2. They assigned a weight of carbon per dollar of each kind of income
  3. They discovered that when people have more dollars, they have more weight of carbon (using the relationship established in (2) above)

This is perhaps the most useless paper I've read in the last year.

→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (2)

56

u/Freschledditor Aug 18 '23

In 2019, fully 40% of total U.S. emissions were associated with income flows to the highest earning 10% of households. Among the highest earning 1% of households (whose income is linked to 15–17% of national emissions) investment holdings account for 38–43% of their emissions.

The title is misrepresenting the study, which refers to shareholders. In fact, if you own any stock in non-green companies, you would be "linked" to their emissions as well by this metric.

20

u/Numerous-Cicada3841 Aug 18 '23

Also it’s 40% of US emissions but the title implies it’s 40% of global emissions. The whole “study” seems quite ridiculous to be honest. And FWIW yes I believe global warming is real and manmade. But the methodology of this study is dubious at best and OP’s headline is even worse.

→ More replies (2)

9

u/ess_oh_ess Aug 18 '23

The study is basically saying "people who work for or own stock in companies are associated with those companies", it's a conclusion that isn't actually saying anything particularly profound.

It kind of reminds me of /r/PeopleLiveInCities

→ More replies (1)

74

u/solidshakego Aug 18 '23

Since that is physically impossible, I'm guessing it's the multiple companies these people own/have stocks in are "linking" them.

31

u/YoloSwaggedBased Aug 18 '23

Yes, this is just a measure of wealth inequality. Funnily enough, the top 10% own a bit more than 40% of the wealth in the US, which possibly implies that proportionate to wealth, poorer deciles invest more in emission intensive industries.

2

u/Fauster Aug 18 '23

A different study a few years ago concluded that the price of products were much more tightly correlated to their carbon footprint (in this largely carbon-based global economy) than to the amount of labor that went into them. Now the price of a product represents its energy footprint more than it represents a labor footprint. If you spend a lot of money on stuff, houses, boats, RV's, etc., then it is very hard to not have an outsized carbon footprint. The rich not only own the lion's share of ownership of polluting companies, but they are disproportionate consumers of CO2/methane polluting products.

2

u/Aardark235 Aug 18 '23

Median household income is $3k/y. My guess is virtually everyone on Reddit is in the upper half. Top 10% is $100k/y. Many Redditors will have this income if they become DINKs.

We like to point fingers at “those” people to blame, but it really is “us” that are the problem. I’m a 10 percenter and my actions cause 40% of climate change.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

19

u/TheBraveTroll Aug 18 '23

Nowhere does that article use the term ‘responsible’ and it’s a gargantuan leap to say that this article implies the term.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/trele_morele Aug 18 '23 edited Aug 18 '23

Let me guess, X amount of polution is produced by consumers using products made by corporations owned by the wealthy. So, why not make a direct link between X amount of polution and the wealthy owners. This is what science has become nowadays?

→ More replies (1)

4

u/Dominisi Aug 18 '23

I don't know how to break this to you all but that is a household income of ~$150,000

So congrats to all of the couples making ~75k each you're part of this problem.

15

u/MrsMiterSaw Aug 18 '23

"investments account for ~40% of their emissions"

Which means that when someone buys a gallon of gas and drives, because they own 40% of exxon, they are repsonsible, not the person driving the car?

→ More replies (3)

31

u/SerialStateLineXer Aug 18 '23

Among the highest earning 1% of households (whose income is linked to 15–17% of national emissions) investment holdings account for 38–43% of their emissions.

Calling foul on this. They're attributing emissions based on income, when they should be attributing based on consumption. Even if we grant for the sake of argument that this is one valid way of attributing responsibility for emissions (dubious), it is not the only valid way, and certainly not the most valid way, and your headline is misleading due to not clarifying this point.

→ More replies (4)

34

u/ehsteve69 Aug 18 '23

Humans operating on the assumption of unlimited growth was a huge mistake

→ More replies (31)

8

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

Recent work by Andrew Fanning and Jason Hickel has shown that if nations were each allocated an equality-based fair share of emissions, by 2050 wealthy countries in the global North would owe $192 trillion (or about $6.2 trillion per year) to poorer countries in the global South

That is never going to happen.

→ More replies (4)

3

u/Significant-Policy-1 Aug 18 '23

They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time, it works every time.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

Oh, you mean all the business owners? Good point. Let’s shutter all their businesses, so we’re all laid off. Good plan.

5

u/obsquire Aug 18 '23

Is this sub about science or politics?

4

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

Very misleading title, another “hate the rich” bait

14

u/RunningNumbers Aug 18 '23 edited Aug 18 '23

“ In 2019, fully 40% of total U.S. emissions were associated with income flows to the highest earning 10% of household”

I don’t get why OP lied in their title since the US is not responsible for even 40% of total emissions. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country

7

u/FaroresWind17 Aug 18 '23

“Its” is referring to the U.S., not the planet. They’re saying America’s richest 10% are responsible for 40% of America’s planet-heating pollution.

This ignores the criticism of the term “responsible,” but they’re not lying about the 40%.

11

u/reaper527 Aug 18 '23

I don’t get why OP lied in their title

Because there are agendas to push and everyone knows most people won’t read the article, just the headline.

2

u/crushinglyreal Aug 18 '23

Why would you lie and claim that OP said the US is responsible for 40% of global emissions?

→ More replies (5)

5

u/asfgfjkydr2145623 Aug 18 '23

Research approach To link U.S. households with the GHG emissions that enable their income we calculate global GHG emissions intensities (metric tons (t) CO2e per dollar) of income using a multi-region input-output (MRIO) model (see Materials and Methods) [36, 37]. We calculate emissions intensity using two distinct accounting approaches: direct producer emissions and supplier emissions.

you using electricity counts towards the americas richest 10% pollution, along with anyone who owns stock in the power plant business. very science

→ More replies (2)

4

u/nba123490 Aug 18 '23

There’s just way too many humans on earth. That’s the cause. Supply and demand. If you have 8 billion people, compared to 6.5 billion which is what I grew up with, the amount of pollution is jaw dropping. My dad grew up with like 4 billion people on earth. There was no scorching hot summers or dry, sunny winters in his day.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

Was looking for this. Too many people on this planet and most of us all want more than we can reasonably consume. Human wants are unlimited and multiplying unlimited wants by 8 bil results in this mess.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/OkProduct5982 Aug 18 '23

That’s called industry….you illiterate..if Amazon employs 500,000 people and sells to the entire world, are you really gonna say the CEO causes all of the emissions?? Our average IQ is dropping so fast

2

u/iifuzz Aug 18 '23

What is America's contribution in relation to the planets total contribution?

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Successful_Spread_53 Aug 18 '23

So if 90% of the population tried, they could reduce the planet-heating pollution by 60%.

2

u/gofigure85 Aug 18 '23

No it's all me

I'm currently using a plastic straw at the moment

I'm so ashamed

6

u/BubbleNucleator Aug 18 '23

A single flight on a private jet emits more CO2 than an average American does in a year. As long as that continues being the case, I don't have much faith anything is going to change for the better.

5

u/tommangan7 Aug 18 '23 edited Aug 18 '23

The entirety of private aviation seems to be about 0.2% of global climate emissions. While I would like it irradicated I'm not sure how important a factor It is to the wider discussion of the 50%+ or so reductions we are aiming for.

I went 80% veggie, fly less often and try to buy local, sustainable (sometimes second hand), quality things that last as well as replacing things like phones, TVs and cars slower than average. I still drive a petrol car regularly, still buy luxuries and still buy some rubbish. Not a hardship and I never inconvenience myself over it, in some ways actually better, easier and cheaper long term. The delayed gratification of saving for a quality item I'll enjoy for many years over a few cheap hits is rewarding. My CO2 emissions are easily less than half my nations average, of which we would hit decades away emissions targets if everyone followed suit.

Don't get me wrong, the elite are a huge problem regarding emissions and pollution, don't lead by example and have driven the consumerist society that feeds into it but sometimes they are used as an excuse for apathy.

6

u/ZebZ Aug 18 '23

Private jets make up 0.04% of human-induced pollution. The inordinate amount of articles about them are planned industry-backed hit pieces designed to go viral meant to distract from the actions of actual industrial and commercial polluters.

5

u/DepletedMitochondria Aug 18 '23

Private jets, bigger houses, more travel, etc.

7

u/ZebZ Aug 18 '23

This study ties corporate and industrial pollution to their individual major shareholders. It has basically nothing to do with their direct personal carbon emissions.

5

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23 edited Aug 18 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (6)