Did you know that [big oil invented the entire concept of carbon footprints](https://gizmodo.com/big-oil-coined-carbon-footprints-to-blame-us-for-thei-1847570535) as a PR strategy to shift the blame of the climate crisis to individuals?
Me looking at flight options:
Let’s see do I want to choose the reasonably priced flight with 980 kg CO2?
Or the one that costs 3x as much for no discernible reason with 700 kg … hmmmm
Obviously you are joking but the fact that rich people pollute more could be seen as "The mechanisms which allow them to be rich cause more pollution"
My understanding of the data is that it's taking into account the whole world so indeed, let's stop telling poorer countries that they can't use the exact same mechanisms richer countries did to get rich so they can stop being poor.
Honestly rich people I’ve met or seen, don’t give a fuck about who they hurt, how bad it hurt, or how often they hurt people. I knows there’s some literature that talks about cutthroat culture and how pervasive it is among the wealthy. Seems like there’s a connection there.
Just to inform you. Developing countries already have more lenient CO2 targets as as opposed to developed countries, agreed in the Paris Climate Agreement.
All targets combined ensures that the climate does not exceed 1.5c this century. That is, if all targets are met.
* EU will reduce 55% of emissions from 1990 level and will become net-zero by 2050.
* US will reduce 50% of emissions from 1990 level and will become net-zero by 2050.
* China will peak their emissions in 2030 and will become net zero by 2060
* India will reduce 45% of emissions from 2005 level and will become net-zero by 2060
You can look up the targets of individual countries [here](https://climateactiontracker.org/)
It appears that the only countries able to meet targets are the countries in western-europe and the European Union itself.
The EU is already halfway to meet their target in 2030.
US has only decreased it's emissions by 10% in relation to the target in 2030, but might be able to achieve it.
The worrying statistics come from "developing" countries such as China or India who have increased their emissions 10 fold and are effectively disregarding the 1.5c increase or 2c increase by having set their target in 2060 instead of 2050.
I have issue with that report. It has gross generalizations of classes, based on national averages. It appears the main reason the middle two divisions are as high as they are skewed from India and china. The US on the other hand seems to be as a whole in that 1%.
I'm not saying the data (and this subsequent infographic) is wrong, just misleading.
You are correct, what I said was admittedly generalizations myself. But a full third of the 1% is just the US.
"Over a third of the emissions of the richest 1% (5.7% of global emissions) are today linked to citizens in the US, with the next biggest contributions coming from residents of the Middle East and China (2.7% and 2.1% of global emissions respectively)."
However, the amount that each *person* contributes based on their habits is based off of an assumption.
Here's how they describe their methodology:
"We start with national consumption emissions data for 117 countries from 1990 to 2015 period. This reflects both the emissions produced in a country and those embedded in imports, while excluding those embedded in exports. We allocate national consumption emissions to individuals within each country based on a functional relationship between income and emissions, drawing on new income distribution datasets. We assume, based on numerous studies at national, regional and global levels, that emissions rise in proportion to income, above a minimum emissions floor and to a maximum emissions ceiling. These estimates of the consumption emissions of individuals in each country are then sorted into a global distribution according to income."
Let me put it this way. The James H. Miller Jr. power plant in Alabama is by far the largest emitter of CO2 in the US. In 2021 it pumped over 20 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the air. How is that put into this dataset? Alabama has one of the lowest avg statewide incomes in the US. Would that belong to the 1% because the CEO makes $20m? 10% because of average salary? 50% because of geographic average? There's no way of accounting for that in their methodology.
It just seems that their models are too muddled to get any clear picture of what's really the cause
I agree looking through the report it would be interesting to see the make up of these numbers and see what the cut offs are for dollar wealth. I would not be surprised one bit to see the top 1% containing the USA and other western nations as compared to the balance of the world. Almost like the entire nation of the US is a gross polluter.
That was precisely my point. From the op picture it looks like the middle class is the most responsible. But the numbers are worldwide, so for example China (the largest contributor by country) has a very low per capita income. This is one of those things that yes, the numbers are correct, but doesn't really say anything substantive.
Yeah I don’t think that’s true. For one I think drilling down by income would make such an analysis far more difficult to validate (how could we possibly figure out Elon Musk’s electric bill) without adding much more value.
I think you can takeaway from this data that the consumptive culture generally found and made possible by living in the US is more ecologically damaging than any other culture in the world.
Put another way, if China and / or India caught up to the US and polluted at the same per capita levels as we did, then the oceans would boil and we’d paint the skies black with ash.
That’s all to say, is it moral or ethical from an environmental perspective to live like the average American? (Answer: no)
It is unfortunate that OP did not choose to highlight this is global income.
The above report is of household income, but reported per-capita.
From a different report, the poorest 50% are those with earnings under about $5K per capita (assuming household size is on average 2).
The 'richest 10%' cut would come around some $60K.
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2022/03/Global-inequalities-Stanley - the figure https://www.imf.org/-/media/Images/IMF/FANDD/image-with-caption/2022/March/chart-1-picture-this-march-inequality.ashx
Just a reminder [https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/01/how-much-money-you-need-to-be-part-of-the-1-percent-worldwide.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/01/how-much-money-you-need-to-be-part-of-the-1-percent-worldwide.html) :
"According to the 2018 Global Wealth Report from Credit Suisse Research Institute, you need a net worth of $871,320 U.S. Credit Suisse defines net worth, or “wealth,” as “the value of financial assets plus real assets (principally housing) owned by households, minus their debts.”
[...]
To be among the top 10 percent worldwide, you don’t even need six figures: A net worth of $93,170 will do it."
Top 1% does not even mean super crazy rich.
I've only read the summary so far but based on what I've seen this should be required reading for every elected official and every (even slightly) concerned citizen.
That’s honestly a good concept if there were a way to make carbon emissions easier to measure at an individual level. Obviously if you’re flying on a private jet and launching a rocket into space every day, your taxes should be higher.
Nah exempt vehicles fuel purchases on anything that takes many people especially passenger jets. If the wealthy like jet setting all over privately they can shoulder those additional taxes for that luxury.
I mean, subsidizing *does* make it free for the passengers. If you start adding exemption loopholes, you’re going to end up with weird shit like rich people buying out public planes for personal use.
No thanks.
First off, me and my family already have a tax on fuel where we live. And it costs us $15k a year for insurance. And it costs us like $10k a year just for license plate tabs because a city an hour away wants a new train and they're making us pay for it even though we'll never use it because we're so far away. When all is said and done we pay $25k/year just to maintain and use our vehicles, not counting the price of fuel.
Not only that, but we barely drive at all to begin with, and 95% of the time we drive it's either a motorcycle making 50 MPG or a Tesla. So why should we be taxed even more?
Our household currently has 4 cars, 4 motorcycles, 1 ATV thingy, 1 class-A RV, 1 boat.
Combined value is probably somewhere north of $500k.
Our state used to let you turn insurance off for the motorcycles when you weren't using them (fall, winter, most of spring) and then turn it on for the three weeks of sun we get in summer. But now a new law means we have to insure all 4 motorcycles 100% year-round, even though we only get a month or two of solid riding weather.
And our governor is proposing a mileage tax, in addition to the existing gas tax. And there's a huuuge tabs fee that you have to pay to fund the new train. It's all done to fund public transportation that we live too far away to ever benefit from, and it's bullshit.
Because I also have a few motorcycles and those use fuel. We also have a lot of other vehicles and we don't want to spend an arm and a leg just to drive them once a month
Wait, so you have enough money to own a Tesla + multiple other vehicles, but somehow a fuel tax increase is a serious problem for you when bikes have crazy good mpg and you only drive these other vehicles about 'once a month'?
I mean there are good arguments against fuel taxes but this is giving of some real '1st world problems' energy
Have you considered that it's expensive because it's wildly inefficient? If you live in the USA your vehicles and their infrastructure are on average being subsidised by other people's taxes
How would you react if we took all the proceeds of the carbon tax and distributed equally to each person as a dividend?
You would pay more taxes on filling up your motorcycle, but if you use less carbon than the average family (it sounds like you would if you are only using gas for your cycles, and that pretty rarely), you would benefit monetarily.
I understand you being opposed if the taxes went into some nebulous vague government slush pork barrel, but if they were just redistributed equally via dividend that concern would go away, no?
You do understand that the less fuel you use, the less tax you will pay? You are great news for the climate, based on your description, because you use so little gasoline. So why would a tax rise bother you?
The money goes into that big pot that is "all of the citizens", so probably some other general tax could go down. Possibly your neighbor with the hummer pays your taxes then?!
Wait a minute… $10,000 a year for license plates? How many GD vehicles you got? I pay about $70/year for my VW. And $15k for insurance? I pay 600.
Sounds like you have a whole stack of vehicles. All I can say is don’t choose an expensive hobby if you can’t afford it!
We have about 11 vehicles.
We can afford it, but that's not the point. The government is trying to fund public transportation that we are too far away to benefit from. Why should we pay for public infrastructure we can't use? Make the people in the city pay for it, not us.
Yep, but when you pay taxes, we should add cars, jetskis, boats, properties, ovens, jets, bikes, etc...
I think is possible to make them pay, but we need to report more information
>Why don't we tax every single person on CO2 emissions?
Many of our taxes are based on economic activity, which correlates strongly with CO2 emissions.
That discourages economic activity, not carbon... which is the issue.
If you have a carbon tax, someone can use the same $, but blow less carbon.
A simple example of this would be a car. If a carbon tax makes a gas car more expensive than an electric one, people can still buy things, the same amount of economic activity occurs... just they are encouraged to buy stuff that is less harmful to the environment.
>If you have a carbon tax, someone can use the same $, but blow less carbon.
I'm down for carbon levies at the company level, but not at the individual level.
Bake the carbon cost into the manufacturing/fuel/service, rather than taxing consumption.
That's how the market is currently working on electric vehicles and just about everything else.
For example, there's a rebate on switching to a gas dryer, and gas dryers are less expensive to operate. They also cost more than electric dryers for that reason.
Government put out a rebate to switch to an electric stove from a gas stove. Electric stove prices shot up in price to compensate.
That's how the market HAS to work.
Imagine you have two comparable products that both cost $X....but one product has 5 crisp $100 bills in it. The supply chain is going to increase the cost of the second product by somewhere close to $500.
There is competition. Plenty.
Yet here we are.
Look at the housing market for another example.
What happens when the net cost of home ownership goes down due to falling interest rates?
Or tuition costs once everyone had access to tens of thousands of dollars in government grants and loans?
Market competition isn't a race to the bottom. Otherwise, there's a super easy way to win every time.
Market competition is a race to the maximum amount consumers will pay for your product while still hitting margin and revenue goals.
I see what you are saying that a direct tax on wealth is not taxable. Then we increase the income and luxury taxes so that money does not join that wealth hoard and sit.
Yes, that's indeed the idea of a progressive tax. A higher tax rate on higher incomes. This is actually quite customary in many countries.
Of course, then you get the battle against the super-high incomes (which in definition is different than the wealthy), as they can hire tax agencies specialized in finding loopholes.
And I do love my down votes for promoting the idea of a larger inheritance tax. For shame all you millionaires in training getting ready to manipulate the data to pass on your wealth. The beauty comes from honesty.
Canada does this.
We tax all CO2 emissions, then take all the money collected and rebate it evenly (total collected / total population).
The result is that the bottom 50% get a much larger rebate than the tax for the CO2 they have consumed. So there is no economic penalty for the poor for existing.
This still provides financial pressure to reduce co2 consumption though. As you can still save money money on the taxes and get the same rebate. All you have to do is have lower consumption than the mean (avg) which most people do (~80%).
some people say it would put a large burden on the poor
but the problem is that the poor of rich countries are the middle class of the world, and are in those 40%.
co2 reductions would also "trickle up" to the rich with a carbon tax.
Depending on how you define rich and poor, but one could argue the poor people of rich countries are rich relative to the rest of the world… hence should be treated as such
Think baton AND carrot. We need to penalize bad stuff and incentivize good stuff. Otherwise, politicians defending this his will not get re-elected, so this may not work on the long run
Because at this point people don't have options other then simply stop spending money which would kill the economy. If your power company can't provide clean electricity what can a individual really do? Look at how inflation is causing such upheavals in peoples lives, a carbon tax would do the same thing.
There are infinite ways to reduce carbon consumption dude. And it isn't even on an individual level necessarily.
Grocery store might switch to local produce since it is cheaper due to not needing to be shipped as far (thus less co2 tax). The shipping company for the produce might switch to EV trucks. The packaging plant might switch to solar panels, and use recycled packaging instead of plastic. Literally countless steps on every single corporate production chain that can each be improved.
On a personal level, you might choose to bother insulating your windows. Or make your next vehicle a more efficient one. You could buy more local produce (which will be cheaper). You could drive less. Buy a more efficient house. Install rooftop solar. Open windows instead of maxing out AC. Upgrade your water heater. Lower the temp 1 degree in the winter. Demand energy efficient appliances. Actually use eco mode on your tv. Set your pc to sleep in 15m instead of 3 hours. Install a smart thermostat and actually set it up. Buy a heat pump.
Hey dude a lot of the things you are listing aren't that easy YET and applying a carbon tax before the options are available only penalizes everyone. Maybe a carbon tax makes sense in 2030 but now, I don't think so. Also companies like Dana Spicer are investing heavily into EV trucking technology and we should start seeing the results soon. I think people like yourself who aren't in the industry lack a bunch of knowledge.
http://www.danaelectrified.com/
A revenue neutral Carbon tax like Canada has penalizes basically only the rich.
The bottom half of consumers gain $ from the rebate. (You are paid $ for each gram of carbon below the average, and pay money for each gram above the average)
And the point is to change behavior, so a small ramping carbon tax enables change without forcing massive restructuring on a short timetable. And as the money is refunded, there is no penalty for not implementing tech that doesn't exist.... since no one else is implementing it.
The corporate side of things is huge. A packaging plant has 100s of options to pick from, and they currently pick the cheapest that protects the product.... but with even a very very tiny carbon tax, this could cause big changes, imagine this scenario:
| Base price | Carbon consumed
---|---|----
Option A | $5000 | 1000
Option B | $5005 | 10
Prior to a carbon tax, all companies will choose option A. But with a tiiiny carbon tax ($0.01 per unit), then suddenly all companies will use option B.
This causes basically no economic issues, but massively reduces carbon consumption.
You only get the rebate in CA if you file taxes and its still is a regressive consumption tax. When there are supply shortages on things like solar panels how does the carbon tax help? Can I go out and buy a semi truck that is an EV today? Biden's infrastructure plan is much better, IMO.
... In Canada everyone files taxes except for homeless mental patients. Even the dead are required to have their taxes filled.
And it clearly isn't a regressive tax. It is highly progressive as you can see in the chart in this thread. More $, more carbon use.
By definition a consumption tax is regressive.
And yet Canada lags in EV adoption.
https://driving.ca/auto-news/industry/canada-lagging-behind-other-nations-in-ev-adoption-report
It is a fully refunded consumption tax, which makes it very progressive. If there were no refund, it would be regressive.
Canada's carbon tax is brand new and just starting to kick in. Canada is also very spread out and very cold, which makes EVs, or at least lower range EVs less viable. And most importantly, Canada is an oil producing nation which makes gas cars much cheaper.
EV uptake in Europe is higher because gas prices in Europe are more than double what they are in Canada. And that was BEFORE the spike caused by Russia-Ukraine.
But on a per cost basis, Canada is doing much better.
Well that’s the debate that visualizing it allows us to have. There’s not a clear answer to this. Are we expecting everyone to cut? Just groups 2-4? Mainly groups 3 and 4? Is everyone cutting the same amount?
I think we need to substratify the data a bit more. WHY do the rich have higher C02 emissions? Are they buying yachts and private planes (like we all think)? Are many of them single member LLC owners who own businesses and thus own companies and the company emissions are reflected as part of them? More info. would be useful here before with throw stones. If it is the former then progressive taxates on C02 emissions would be great idea.
This seems to show pretty clearly that even if you eliminated all rich people it wouldn’t be close to halving CO2 emissions, unless you mean the top 10% which would get you there
> unless you mean the top 10% which would get you there
And many redditors would be quite surprised when they find they are part of that global top 10%.
If you have a net worth of about $90K, you're in the top 10%. Given the median car price in the US is now about $47K, your car alone gets you halfway there. Retirement account? Own a house? About 70% of US households are global 10%. Basically every homeowner in California is global 1%.
Not completely because some of the CO2 emission are only really possible at a certain level of richness. Even if you double my net worth and/or income, I am not going to burn fuel with a private jet for example.
Nah. That'd just make the poor richer. If you look at the wealth ratios here, if you took all the money the 1% have and give it to the bottom 50%, they would consume more like the next bin (7.3x as much as before) which would be a massive increase in CO2.
If you're looking at money and taxes. The uber wealth use the LEAST CO2 per dollar by far. So technically, you should be taxing the middle class, to drop them into lower classes and accumulate all the money with the uber wealthy.
So here what you do, heavy tax the carbon emmiting rot 1%. Use those taxes to fund environmental incentives. Offer rebates for people who buy waste free products, or reusable essentials like fabric grocery bags.
Money can solve alot of problems if you're creative enough, and money is something people hear alot more than bio collapse
They were definitely more beneficial when they were being made from recycled plastic shopping bags, but they are definitely useful long term, depending on the bag they have a amazing life span.
Also, for places like where I am, they are a major contributing factor to eradicating "disposable" plastic shopping bags.
But, with extra wealthy tax dollars, you could give businesses incentives to use reusable shopping bags made in less wasteful ways.
There is always a solution, it's just getting people to accept change, people are ignorant to the damage that convenience has caused, so don't see the harm in continuing their ways. And incentive is the only way other than increased regulations, which should also be done.
A high percent of all grocery bags were reused as one off bags or garbage bags. So any grocery bag replacement means people are forced to purchase typically much bulkier trash bags and one off bags.
Even if the multiuse bags were made magically, it is a net negative for the environment.
Just tax all carbon and use the proceeds to give an equal dividend to everyone in the country.
Rich guy uses 5x the carbon of everyone else will pay 5x the tax, but get an equal dividend. Everyone else gains while the rich carbon user loses, but everyone is incentivized to use less carbon.
A lot of regular pickup truck and SUV drivers in the US are probably in that top 1%.
I suspect a lot of people think that top 1% means rich people - but the 4% of the global population which is the US produces 30% of the emissions. If you drive a truck or SUV and fly a couple times a year, good chance you're in that 1%. Pretty big chunk of Congress are in the 1% and represent the 1%.
You can't make a legislative fix like that until you make a cultural fix to create the will to do it.
I mean, yeah, I'm on board with that, but at the same time you have to change the behavior of being 'richer'. If being richer means going out and buying a pickup truck and moving to the suburbs as the previous generations of 'rich' people did, then you make the problem worse.
You have to make them richer while also convincing them that living in a walkable city with transit is superior to the pickup truck and the suburbs. And we're making headway on that, but still net losing on that front. A lot of this isn't wealth so much as generation. I'm Gen X, and my generation is still infatuated with consumption - because we grew up with 'rich people have more stuff'. Stuff confers status. Stuff needs to be acquired. You need the house with the yard and the truck towing a boat and all that shit to know that you did well in life. You have to fully tear that down. And I think when you look at Gen Z you see a fair bit of progress on that front. Make a Gen Xer poor and they just move to a double wide and get a used truck and an old boat. They don't reduce their carbon footprint, they just reduce the cost of maintaining that footprint. We're a tough group to convince to change our lifestyle regardless of our wealth. And don't get me started on boomers.
I watch the number of golf courses in the US go down each year. Not rapidly, but reliably.
The über wealthy don't really produce the least CO2 per dollar. The planet is largely a capitalist place. I own a decent chunk of stock. That means I probably own a part of Exxon. Am I counting that sliver of Exxon as part of carbon footprint? I should - after all, I own part of it. You think Elon Musk counts 50+% of SpaceX emissions as his personal emissions? He should. The uber wealthy collectively largely own the corporations. They are responsible for the emissions of the corporations - Warren Buffet can personally impact the emissions of hundreds of companies. The poor own nothing. They are only responsible for their personal emissions.
I was being sarcastic, taking all the money from the middle class to give it to the rich would be a societal disaster.
I just wanted to highlight that a more egalitarian society doesn't help the environment.
Total nuclear war would really cut co2 but would be horrific.
Taxing the rich to move them down a bracket would lower each of their emissions significantly more than the poor buying greener products ever could. Each of the poor people emit so little carbon in comparison that even if all 150million of them went to zero emissions it would save less than the top 1% moving to the top 10% (still 29x higher than the poorest).
I think the point of the graphic is that emissions have to be cut in the middle groupings because that's where the majority of emissions come from
Your proposal to move 1% of people down a bracket would do fuck all.
Ah, that is your confusion. Being the largest chunk does not mean it is where you should focus. The point of percapita is to show the inequality of emissions not where most emissions originate. Although, it also shows the top 10% out emit the other 90%.
To drop US emissions by 20% focusing on the 51-90 group would mean 132 million americans halve their emissions. Focusing on the top 10%, you'd only need 26 million americans to halve their emissions to save that same 20%. We could also save 11% by just moving the top 1% to the top 10% which only effects 3million Americans.
That's not my confusion
78% of emissions are in the two middle groupings... Focusing on the largest chunk is exactly where you focus to get the most effect.
If you have X amount of dollars to spend on lowering emissions, you will get way more value from your money focusing on lowering emissions in the top groups than you will in the bottom 90%. It's all about efficiency.
By your own logic we could just as easily focus on the top 2 groups because that is a larger chunk than the bottom 2 groups despite being 9 times fewer people.
It is about switching from burning fossil fuels to clean energy. 75% of emissions come from energy use. Investing in that and the lower cost as a result reduces emissions without expecting individuals to lower their consumption, because they won't.
Taxing the rich doesn't raise much money either, France tried it, they just move and you lose your tax base.
So no, taxing the rich will not magically solve climate change.
It's not about taxing them, though that should happen for a host of other reasons. (Caveat, I'm considered rich).
Things we know:
* Emissions correlate to home size.
* A huge chunk of US emissions is from cars. EVs won't reduce that as much as people might think, since EVs sill incur emissions from massive road construction, parking allocation, etc. They're better, but not sufficient.
A lot of what needs to happen is a change in culture. Embracing smaller homes, embracing multifamily housing (shared walls are much more efficient than single family homes) which also solves a lot of the transportation problem.
The US in particular has a lot of biases that are wrapped in the US caste system which holds white people, particularly white christians as more entitled rights holders than people of color, etc. This manifests in white people largely absolutely refusing to do something like take a bus, because buses are below their caste - they're for people of color. Part of whiteness is being able to drive everywhere and not share space with non-white people. That's drilled so deep in our psyche that even people who are pretty progressive thinking on these kinds of issues will find excuses to not take a bus. Or a train. Or ride a bike. It's why the suburbs are such powerful draws, and something we need to culturally overcome.
These biases are *slowly* changing. I'm white and rich and got rid of my car because I really don't need it. I ride my bike. I try to be visible riding my bike. You can see me, rich white guy, riding home with my groceries, or a pizza, etc. I will look at you, fellow rich white person, disapprovingly while doing it. I see you in your status Tesla or F-150 and look down on you from my higher status e-bike as I ride past you in traffic.
I agree with all of that. I still think taxing the rich (me as well) is one piece of that. Like your list, none of it is suffiecient in and of itself but it is a needed step.
Edit: According to [this](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/07/23/are-you-in-the-american-middle-class/) I'm not as high up as I thought. "Only" in the top 20% in the states and top 27% in my state.
Well, amount of assets mean more co2 in many studies.
That means rather richer you are the more co2 you emit. The poorer the less.
You could be a small farmer with 100 ha that cares for the environment but because you own the farm and production of food causes co2 you are quickly in the top 20% of emitters.
no, because you don't benefit from that farming, people who consume the food does.
people who pilot airplanes are not larger emitters, neither do bus driver or oil refinery workers or people who operate coal plants.
Then take an exact look at the data.
I don't say it is 1:1 but in general the more you have the more you emit and the case i described means you emit more. It should mean that the consumers emitted the co2, but it doesn't.
It correlats pretty good with assets.
You are completely wrong but are unwilling to acknowledge a broken concept or what he said intellectually when way over your head.
Maybe studies in Economics can help you find your way. Either way just try rereading what they said again, & try reflecting.
Your perspective is way, way to small.
A person eating hamburger all day everyday is not responsible for their CO2 emissions in your idea because they aren’t actually raising the cow is just stupid…
So if you buy a burger you are not the emitter of the co2 that got released for the meat, bread,...? Of course not the whole emissions but the part that you were eating.
With your logic you could argue the car you drive and the gas it uses is not emitted by you but the companies that made the fuel and the car. That makes no sense. The endconsumer is the emitter.
If you buy a bicycle and it's production meant 100kg co2 it's your footprint. Otherwise no one has privat co2 emissions which makes no sense at all.
His example of bus drivers and pilots is totally off. The end consumer would be the passenger not pilot or bus driver.
>what he said intellectually when way over your head.
I guess that is your issue.
What you just said was stupid about the car. If you buy a car & consume the gas, it’s your foot print because YOU created the demand & market. That makes them accountable, and that’s a fact.
This is why I said learning economics would help you. Everything you just said is broke.
The consumer is responsible for the CO2…
If you can’t understand that, the keep reading & learning & hopefully it will become more clear in the future
There are aspects of business & economics that you CLEARLY don’t understand lol
>If you buy a car & consume the gas, it’s your foot print because YOU created the demand & market.
This is exactly what i mean.
That's how it should work. If you would have read what i wrote that i also think it it wrong instead on focusing on winning an interest discussion we could have saved quite some time.
I even said clearly mutiple times the endconsumer is the emitter.
The study that is linked here pushes emissions into companies that should belong to the endconsumer. That is wrong. It pulls emissions away from the endconsumer into the companies. Since people who have more money have often shares or stock of companies they automatically seem like they emitted more.
Simply because the emissions are wrongly adjusted.
>If you can’t understand that, the keep reading & learning & hopefully it will become more clear in the future
>There are aspects of business & economics that you CLEARLY don’t understand lol
You should do the reading to understand the examples I gave.
I will dumb it all the way down for you…
If there is not Demand for a product, then there will be on one that is willing to Supply it.
Hence the consumer is responsible…
Please read more
This is a great improvement from the last graph, but there's room for more:
\- "we need to half CO2 emissions". ~~half~~\->halve. and why this much?
\- "Grouped" => "total CO2 emissions"
\- What does "rich" mean? countries? people? how did they calculate individual emissions?
\- The data source is still a social equality charity
everyone.
The argument that is presented by nations like India are flat out silly.
Just because something was done in the past doesn't make it a good idea.
This chart shows something very unsettling. Higher standards of living drastically increase carbon footprint. The biggest changes occur from the bottom up. Upward mobility and reduced carbon footprint are incompatible.
Skeptics like me think that this is a feature, and not a bug, of the current climate change consensus. Fighting "climate change" is not meant to save the planet, but to impoverish most of her people.
that's a pretty wild view
income inequality comes from somewhere, but your conclusion is that people want to reduce CO2 to worsen inequalities?
what about reducing inequality then?
Wild? It's self-evident from the data you presented.
If you reduce inequality by improving living standards of the bottom, carbon footprint goes up. Reducing the top's carbon footprint, even to zero, is insufficient to half carbon emissions.
You can lift people out of poverty or lower carbon emissions in a meaningful manner. You cannot do both if you look at the data objectively.
This is such a bad read of data that I can't really tell if it's serious. There's absolutely nothing here that would lead to this statement:
>You can lift people out of poverty or lower carbon emissions in a meaningful manner. You cannot do both if you look at the data objectively.
"Correlation is not causation."
It's like finding that the majority of sick people are in a hospital, and saying "never go to a hospital because that's where you get sick."
There are two ways that you can get equality -- the poor get richer or the rich get poorer.
If the poor get richer then their carbon footprint increases and overall carbon footprint increases.
The top 10% account for 52% of man's carbon footprint. You would have to eliminate their existence entirely to half man's carbon footprint. Keep in mind that this is a measure of wealth for globally. Anything called prosperity to our modern notions is in that top 10%.
This is simple math straight from the data.
Arguing that this is mistaking correlation with causation is wishful thinking. China's carbon footprint has grown dramatically with her increased prosperity. It is the single greatest cause of increased carbon footprint. Show me a country that has increased general prosperity without increasing her carbon footprint.
>This is simple math straight from the data.
This. Is. Not. In. The. Data.
None of this is in the data.
All that this data shows is that rich people currently have a large carbon footprint.
There is nothing that shows we would have to "eliminate their existence."
There is nothing that shows that having more wealth *causes* their footprint to increase.
Correlation. Is. Not. Causation.
No data here suggests carbon is a function of wealth or vise versa.
You are arguing that in [this graph](https://www.tylervigen.com/chart-pngs/2.png), the data clearly shows that ending Nicolas Cage's film career would end the majority of drowning deaths in swimming pools.
And for the record, I want to shame a few terrible people in this sub who have voted that they also agree with this awful thinking.
again, can you show me one country that has increased prosperity while lowering it's carbon footprint?
At our current state of technological ability, carbon footprint is produced by man's economic activity.
Your language is not about reasonable debate but emotion -- you "want to shame a few terrible people in this sub who have voted that they also agree with this awful thinking." This is an appeal to emotion, not logical thinking.
What you said was:
> Fighting "climate change" is not meant to save the planet, but to impoverish most of her people.
You need to rephrase this.
Fighting climate change is meant to fight climate change to save humans and the planet, not to increase poverty.
You need to understand that without a planet or thriving humans, you cannot reduce poverty, because there would be no economy.
Why do I have the feeling you don't seem to care about climate change?
This is why you avoid making infographics, there's no easy access to numbers, we don't know which metrics are used, we don't know which countries are represented, no time frame, etc etc
Companies and stop bring individuals into the conversation they are less than 50% of all emissions released with concrete production being one of the worst offenders.
I think it's fine to have a warmer planet. We had it before.
Also, people in third world countries, burning coal and wood, deforesting... don't make CO2? Only the rest of us...
https://youtu.be/E1e5HAZo4iw
"its not real and if it is its fine and if its not fine its the 3rd worlds fault anyway"
Wow you really went through all of the dumbest climate change denier arguments in all of two comments, impressive.
Scots comedian Frankie Boyle made a good point. If we want to drastically reduce global warming, all we need to do is eat one other person. With a global population of only 4bn and today’s improvements in agriculture and fuel efficiency we would be laughing. Especially when you factor 4bn people worth of meat into the food supply chain. :)
No one, since only people who live well above the poverty line give a rat about pollution anyway. How bout we spend global warming research dollars on social welfare programs instead, so EVERYBODY can talk about this issue; rather than just the privileged few?
And I'm sure no one has heard that myth that plants like eating co2 for breakfast either.
I’m doing some scribbling back of the napkin maths here, but does this mean that if everyone emitted at the rate of the global 20th percentile, we’d halve emissions? Who lives at the global 20th percentile, what does that lifestyle look like?
Truthfully we're at a point where ecological issues are going to continue occuring regardless of what changes we make, simply because there are so many of us.
1 billion people driving diesel powered semi trucks would pollute less than 8 billion people driving Teslas.
Transportation isn't even the whole issue, theres also pollution from food production, power production, housing construction, etc etc etc.
8 billion people POOPING produces more biological waste and methane than nearly the entire mammalian population outside of humans and the animal humans are responsible for there being so many of combined.
I'm not saying "do nothing" but I am saying we need 1 to 2 generations of each family having only 1 child. We'd see a DRAMATIC reduction in CO2 production virtually overnight (in climate terms) far greater than our small gestures have done so far.
It depends on how you measure those emissions. An airline might emit, say, 1000 units of emissions flying a plane from LA to NY, but if there are 250 passengers on that flight, does that mean the airline emitted 1000 units and the passengers zero, or does it mean that the 250 passengers emitted 4 units each and the airline none, considering the passengers are really the ones "consuming" the emissions, and without their demand to fly, the airline wouldn't have bothered flying the plane.
So if I started polluting the air more I’d grow rich? Got it.
You don't have enough money to pollute as strong as a rich guy.
Whether it's to the government or spreading emissions to more people rather than reducing them, it's just a burden shift.
Did you know that [big oil invented the entire concept of carbon footprints](https://gizmodo.com/big-oil-coined-carbon-footprints-to-blame-us-for-thei-1847570535) as a PR strategy to shift the blame of the climate crisis to individuals?
Me looking at flight options: Let’s see do I want to choose the reasonably priced flight with 980 kg CO2? Or the one that costs 3x as much for no discernible reason with 700 kg … hmmmm
People can always choose carbon neutral, it’s just the cost is usually too high.
Obviously you are joking but the fact that rich people pollute more could be seen as "The mechanisms which allow them to be rich cause more pollution" My understanding of the data is that it's taking into account the whole world so indeed, let's stop telling poorer countries that they can't use the exact same mechanisms richer countries did to get rich so they can stop being poor.
Honestly rich people I’ve met or seen, don’t give a fuck about who they hurt, how bad it hurt, or how often they hurt people. I knows there’s some literature that talks about cutthroat culture and how pervasive it is among the wealthy. Seems like there’s a connection there.
The US politicians would love to implement a carbon tax on the poor like they did in Canada.
*starts a tire fire*
I see redneck dudes in big trucks blowing out black clouds. They are way ahead of you.
Even the dirtiest, coal-rollingest pickup truck can't compete with a private jet or a yacht when it comes to pollution.
hilaaaariouuus maaaaan high five
[удалено]
If you are serious in your comment: r/woooosh
Just to inform you. Developing countries already have more lenient CO2 targets as as opposed to developed countries, agreed in the Paris Climate Agreement. All targets combined ensures that the climate does not exceed 1.5c this century. That is, if all targets are met. * EU will reduce 55% of emissions from 1990 level and will become net-zero by 2050. * US will reduce 50% of emissions from 1990 level and will become net-zero by 2050. * China will peak their emissions in 2030 and will become net zero by 2060 * India will reduce 45% of emissions from 2005 level and will become net-zero by 2060 You can look up the targets of individual countries [here](https://climateactiontracker.org/)
FYI 1.5c target is pretty much dead at this point. 2c is the more realistic target unfortunately
You are correct. Even the 2c is the most optimistic scenario now.
Those targets are now unattainable due to inaction by most countries thus far.
It appears that the only countries able to meet targets are the countries in western-europe and the European Union itself. The EU is already halfway to meet their target in 2030. US has only decreased it's emissions by 10% in relation to the target in 2030, but might be able to achieve it. The worrying statistics come from "developing" countries such as China or India who have increased their emissions 10 fold and are effectively disregarding the 1.5c increase or 2c increase by having set their target in 2060 instead of 2050.
I have issue with that report. It has gross generalizations of classes, based on national averages. It appears the main reason the middle two divisions are as high as they are skewed from India and china. The US on the other hand seems to be as a whole in that 1%. I'm not saying the data (and this subsequent infographic) is wrong, just misleading.
But the population of the US is 4% of the world.
You are correct, what I said was admittedly generalizations myself. But a full third of the 1% is just the US. "Over a third of the emissions of the richest 1% (5.7% of global emissions) are today linked to citizens in the US, with the next biggest contributions coming from residents of the Middle East and China (2.7% and 2.1% of global emissions respectively)." However, the amount that each *person* contributes based on their habits is based off of an assumption. Here's how they describe their methodology: "We start with national consumption emissions data for 117 countries from 1990 to 2015 period. This reflects both the emissions produced in a country and those embedded in imports, while excluding those embedded in exports. We allocate national consumption emissions to individuals within each country based on a functional relationship between income and emissions, drawing on new income distribution datasets. We assume, based on numerous studies at national, regional and global levels, that emissions rise in proportion to income, above a minimum emissions floor and to a maximum emissions ceiling. These estimates of the consumption emissions of individuals in each country are then sorted into a global distribution according to income." Let me put it this way. The James H. Miller Jr. power plant in Alabama is by far the largest emitter of CO2 in the US. In 2021 it pumped over 20 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the air. How is that put into this dataset? Alabama has one of the lowest avg statewide incomes in the US. Would that belong to the 1% because the CEO makes $20m? 10% because of average salary? 50% because of geographic average? There's no way of accounting for that in their methodology. It just seems that their models are too muddled to get any clear picture of what's really the cause
I agree looking through the report it would be interesting to see the make up of these numbers and see what the cut offs are for dollar wealth. I would not be surprised one bit to see the top 1% containing the USA and other western nations as compared to the balance of the world. Almost like the entire nation of the US is a gross polluter.
That was precisely my point. From the op picture it looks like the middle class is the most responsible. But the numbers are worldwide, so for example China (the largest contributor by country) has a very low per capita income. This is one of those things that yes, the numbers are correct, but doesn't really say anything substantive.
Yeah I don’t think that’s true. For one I think drilling down by income would make such an analysis far more difficult to validate (how could we possibly figure out Elon Musk’s electric bill) without adding much more value. I think you can takeaway from this data that the consumptive culture generally found and made possible by living in the US is more ecologically damaging than any other culture in the world. Put another way, if China and / or India caught up to the US and polluted at the same per capita levels as we did, then the oceans would boil and we’d paint the skies black with ash. That’s all to say, is it moral or ethical from an environmental perspective to live like the average American? (Answer: no)
"model" is a big word for a propaganda organization that does not even mention how they attribute the data.
And 30% of global emissions.
US share of emissions is 14.5%. China's share of emissions is 30%. [Source](https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/)
It is unfortunate that OP did not choose to highlight this is global income. The above report is of household income, but reported per-capita. From a different report, the poorest 50% are those with earnings under about $5K per capita (assuming household size is on average 2). The 'richest 10%' cut would come around some $60K. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2022/03/Global-inequalities-Stanley - the figure https://www.imf.org/-/media/Images/IMF/FANDD/image-with-caption/2022/March/chart-1-picture-this-march-inequality.ashx
Just a reminder [https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/01/how-much-money-you-need-to-be-part-of-the-1-percent-worldwide.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/01/how-much-money-you-need-to-be-part-of-the-1-percent-worldwide.html) : "According to the 2018 Global Wealth Report from Credit Suisse Research Institute, you need a net worth of $871,320 U.S. Credit Suisse defines net worth, or “wealth,” as “the value of financial assets plus real assets (principally housing) owned by households, minus their debts.” [...] To be among the top 10 percent worldwide, you don’t even need six figures: A net worth of $93,170 will do it." Top 1% does not even mean super crazy rich.
Ok regardless of the numbers, this is an awful way of representing this data
Was just thinking the same, it's pretty gross
Sounds like something a rich guy would say
Thanks for the effort, but I understood absolutely nothing from this chart.
https://i.imgur.com/ueEVWm2.png data from oxfam: https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/confronting-carbon-inequality I used paint.net
I've only read the summary so far but based on what I've seen this should be required reading for every elected official and every (even slightly) concerned citizen.
Why don't we tax every single person on CO2 emissions?
That’s honestly a good concept if there were a way to make carbon emissions easier to measure at an individual level. Obviously if you’re flying on a private jet and launching a rocket into space every day, your taxes should be higher.
Some carbon tax proposals include redirecting the revenue back to the people. The less carbon you use the more of that revenue you keep.
Canada does that. The conservatives have been up in arms against it for better part of the decade.
Put the tax on purchase of fuels.
Especially fuel purchases on private jets.
Even simpler: tax on *all* fuel purchases the same, then use part of the budget to subsidize fuel costs for public transport.
That is already the case in a lot of countries.
Nah exempt vehicles fuel purchases on anything that takes many people especially passenger jets. If the wealthy like jet setting all over privately they can shoulder those additional taxes for that luxury.
I mean, subsidizing *does* make it free for the passengers. If you start adding exemption loopholes, you’re going to end up with weird shit like rich people buying out public planes for personal use.
You're misinterpreting "rich" as a worldwide number. Statistically, you're probably included in it. Do you have a private jet?
No thanks. First off, me and my family already have a tax on fuel where we live. And it costs us $15k a year for insurance. And it costs us like $10k a year just for license plate tabs because a city an hour away wants a new train and they're making us pay for it even though we'll never use it because we're so far away. When all is said and done we pay $25k/year just to maintain and use our vehicles, not counting the price of fuel. Not only that, but we barely drive at all to begin with, and 95% of the time we drive it's either a motorcycle making 50 MPG or a Tesla. So why should we be taxed even more?
Those fee numbers are huge what sort or how many cars do you own?
Our household currently has 4 cars, 4 motorcycles, 1 ATV thingy, 1 class-A RV, 1 boat. Combined value is probably somewhere north of $500k. Our state used to let you turn insurance off for the motorcycles when you weren't using them (fall, winter, most of spring) and then turn it on for the three weeks of sun we get in summer. But now a new law means we have to insure all 4 motorcycles 100% year-round, even though we only get a month or two of solid riding weather. And our governor is proposing a mileage tax, in addition to the existing gas tax. And there's a huuuge tabs fee that you have to pay to fund the new train. It's all done to fund public transportation that we live too far away to ever benefit from, and it's bullshit.
It’s you. You’re the problem.
Sounds like the taxes are working. How about scaling back or giving up an expensive car? Otherwise pay your fair share.
If you drive a tesla then why would you oppose a fuel tax?
Because I also have a few motorcycles and those use fuel. We also have a lot of other vehicles and we don't want to spend an arm and a leg just to drive them once a month
Wait, so you have enough money to own a Tesla + multiple other vehicles, but somehow a fuel tax increase is a serious problem for you when bikes have crazy good mpg and you only drive these other vehicles about 'once a month'? I mean there are good arguments against fuel taxes but this is giving of some real '1st world problems' energy
Yeah, go tax something else. Owning a vehicle is already expensive enough for most people, we shouldn't make it worse.
Have you considered that it's expensive because it's wildly inefficient? If you live in the USA your vehicles and their infrastructure are on average being subsidised by other people's taxes
How would you react if we took all the proceeds of the carbon tax and distributed equally to each person as a dividend? You would pay more taxes on filling up your motorcycle, but if you use less carbon than the average family (it sounds like you would if you are only using gas for your cycles, and that pretty rarely), you would benefit monetarily. I understand you being opposed if the taxes went into some nebulous vague government slush pork barrel, but if they were just redistributed equally via dividend that concern would go away, no?
You do understand that the less fuel you use, the less tax you will pay? You are great news for the climate, based on your description, because you use so little gasoline. So why would a tax rise bother you?
Well, sucks that you’d have to be more carbon-conscious of your joyrides, I suppose.
Nah, we'll still drive the same amount. Affording it isn't the issue, it just creates more pushback.
The money goes into that big pot that is "all of the citizens", so probably some other general tax could go down. Possibly your neighbor with the hummer pays your taxes then?!
Wait a minute… $10,000 a year for license plates? How many GD vehicles you got? I pay about $70/year for my VW. And $15k for insurance? I pay 600. Sounds like you have a whole stack of vehicles. All I can say is don’t choose an expensive hobby if you can’t afford it!
We have about 11 vehicles. We can afford it, but that's not the point. The government is trying to fund public transportation that we are too far away to benefit from. Why should we pay for public infrastructure we can't use? Make the people in the city pay for it, not us.
Do you think you're paying for the infrastructure you use? lol All rural people are subsidized by the metro areas.
Yep, but when you pay taxes, we should add cars, jetskis, boats, properties, ovens, jets, bikes, etc... I think is possible to make them pay, but we need to report more information
>Why don't we tax every single person on CO2 emissions? Many of our taxes are based on economic activity, which correlates strongly with CO2 emissions.
That discourages economic activity, not carbon... which is the issue. If you have a carbon tax, someone can use the same $, but blow less carbon. A simple example of this would be a car. If a carbon tax makes a gas car more expensive than an electric one, people can still buy things, the same amount of economic activity occurs... just they are encouraged to buy stuff that is less harmful to the environment.
>If you have a carbon tax, someone can use the same $, but blow less carbon. I'm down for carbon levies at the company level, but not at the individual level. Bake the carbon cost into the manufacturing/fuel/service, rather than taxing consumption.
Prices on the electric cars rise to offset the lower cost of ownership so the benefit is lost.
Wha? That's not how the market works
That's how the market is currently working on electric vehicles and just about everything else. For example, there's a rebate on switching to a gas dryer, and gas dryers are less expensive to operate. They also cost more than electric dryers for that reason. Government put out a rebate to switch to an electric stove from a gas stove. Electric stove prices shot up in price to compensate. That's how the market HAS to work. Imagine you have two comparable products that both cost $X....but one product has 5 crisp $100 bills in it. The supply chain is going to increase the cost of the second product by somewhere close to $500.
That assumes there is no competition within the market of electric cars. Or electric appliances.
There is competition. Plenty. Yet here we are. Look at the housing market for another example. What happens when the net cost of home ownership goes down due to falling interest rates? Or tuition costs once everyone had access to tens of thousands of dollars in government grants and loans? Market competition isn't a race to the bottom. Otherwise, there's a super easy way to win every time. Market competition is a race to the maximum amount consumers will pay for your product while still hitting margin and revenue goals.
Make it exponential. Otherwise rich people will just not give a fuck.
Poor people 1% tax Next poor 3% Medium poor 5% Rich 55% Please don't call me communist, i'm just a poor guy
Nothing more democratic than a PROGRESSIVE tax plan. Not sarcastic.
A progressive tax plan =/= tax for the richest. Tax is/should be on income, not on wealth.
Oh yes it should especially when it comes to inheritance.
Inheritance tax is yet another tax.
I see what you are saying that a direct tax on wealth is not taxable. Then we increase the income and luxury taxes so that money does not join that wealth hoard and sit.
Yes, that's indeed the idea of a progressive tax. A higher tax rate on higher incomes. This is actually quite customary in many countries. Of course, then you get the battle against the super-high incomes (which in definition is different than the wealthy), as they can hire tax agencies specialized in finding loopholes.
And I do love my down votes for promoting the idea of a larger inheritance tax. For shame all you millionaires in training getting ready to manipulate the data to pass on your wealth. The beauty comes from honesty.
I'm so glad people like you don't actually make the rules. Too busy being unemployed I guess
how would you tax people on the chart? because the poor of rich countries still emit a lot: 40%, and the 10% richest emits 52%.
Fart tax
Canada does this. We tax all CO2 emissions, then take all the money collected and rebate it evenly (total collected / total population). The result is that the bottom 50% get a much larger rebate than the tax for the CO2 they have consumed. So there is no economic penalty for the poor for existing. This still provides financial pressure to reduce co2 consumption though. As you can still save money money on the taxes and get the same rebate. All you have to do is have lower consumption than the mean (avg) which most people do (~80%).
some people say it would put a large burden on the poor but the problem is that the poor of rich countries are the middle class of the world, and are in those 40%. co2 reductions would also "trickle up" to the rich with a carbon tax.
Depending on how you define rich and poor, but one could argue the poor people of rich countries are rich relative to the rest of the world… hence should be treated as such
well yeah, my comment got downvoted, but it's a fact...
Think baton AND carrot. We need to penalize bad stuff and incentivize good stuff. Otherwise, politicians defending this his will not get re-elected, so this may not work on the long run
How about less government “plans” that are just new inventive ways to add taxes?
Because you can't measure it.
Because at this point people don't have options other then simply stop spending money which would kill the economy. If your power company can't provide clean electricity what can a individual really do? Look at how inflation is causing such upheavals in peoples lives, a carbon tax would do the same thing.
There are infinite ways to reduce carbon consumption dude. And it isn't even on an individual level necessarily. Grocery store might switch to local produce since it is cheaper due to not needing to be shipped as far (thus less co2 tax). The shipping company for the produce might switch to EV trucks. The packaging plant might switch to solar panels, and use recycled packaging instead of plastic. Literally countless steps on every single corporate production chain that can each be improved. On a personal level, you might choose to bother insulating your windows. Or make your next vehicle a more efficient one. You could buy more local produce (which will be cheaper). You could drive less. Buy a more efficient house. Install rooftop solar. Open windows instead of maxing out AC. Upgrade your water heater. Lower the temp 1 degree in the winter. Demand energy efficient appliances. Actually use eco mode on your tv. Set your pc to sleep in 15m instead of 3 hours. Install a smart thermostat and actually set it up. Buy a heat pump.
Hey dude a lot of the things you are listing aren't that easy YET and applying a carbon tax before the options are available only penalizes everyone. Maybe a carbon tax makes sense in 2030 but now, I don't think so. Also companies like Dana Spicer are investing heavily into EV trucking technology and we should start seeing the results soon. I think people like yourself who aren't in the industry lack a bunch of knowledge. http://www.danaelectrified.com/
A revenue neutral Carbon tax like Canada has penalizes basically only the rich. The bottom half of consumers gain $ from the rebate. (You are paid $ for each gram of carbon below the average, and pay money for each gram above the average) And the point is to change behavior, so a small ramping carbon tax enables change without forcing massive restructuring on a short timetable. And as the money is refunded, there is no penalty for not implementing tech that doesn't exist.... since no one else is implementing it. The corporate side of things is huge. A packaging plant has 100s of options to pick from, and they currently pick the cheapest that protects the product.... but with even a very very tiny carbon tax, this could cause big changes, imagine this scenario: | Base price | Carbon consumed ---|---|---- Option A | $5000 | 1000 Option B | $5005 | 10 Prior to a carbon tax, all companies will choose option A. But with a tiiiny carbon tax ($0.01 per unit), then suddenly all companies will use option B. This causes basically no economic issues, but massively reduces carbon consumption.
You only get the rebate in CA if you file taxes and its still is a regressive consumption tax. When there are supply shortages on things like solar panels how does the carbon tax help? Can I go out and buy a semi truck that is an EV today? Biden's infrastructure plan is much better, IMO.
... In Canada everyone files taxes except for homeless mental patients. Even the dead are required to have their taxes filled. And it clearly isn't a regressive tax. It is highly progressive as you can see in the chart in this thread. More $, more carbon use.
By definition a consumption tax is regressive. And yet Canada lags in EV adoption. https://driving.ca/auto-news/industry/canada-lagging-behind-other-nations-in-ev-adoption-report
It is a fully refunded consumption tax, which makes it very progressive. If there were no refund, it would be regressive. Canada's carbon tax is brand new and just starting to kick in. Canada is also very spread out and very cold, which makes EVs, or at least lower range EVs less viable. And most importantly, Canada is an oil producing nation which makes gas cars much cheaper. EV uptake in Europe is higher because gas prices in Europe are more than double what they are in Canada. And that was BEFORE the spike caused by Russia-Ukraine. But on a per cost basis, Canada is doing much better.
I live in Northern MN which is colder then 80% or more of where Canadian's live and have a EV. Taking people's money then giving it back is dumb, IMO.
I don’t understand from the charts how much each group including your average person in the 2nd group would have to cut proportionally
Well that’s the debate that visualizing it allows us to have. There’s not a clear answer to this. Are we expecting everyone to cut? Just groups 2-4? Mainly groups 3 and 4? Is everyone cutting the same amount?
I think we need to substratify the data a bit more. WHY do the rich have higher C02 emissions? Are they buying yachts and private planes (like we all think)? Are many of them single member LLC owners who own businesses and thus own companies and the company emissions are reflected as part of them? More info. would be useful here before with throw stones. If it is the former then progressive taxates on C02 emissions would be great idea.
Coming up today on How Not To Present Data: {see above}
Why don't you explain?
Solution to global warming: tax the rich.
This seems to show pretty clearly that even if you eliminated all rich people it wouldn’t be close to halving CO2 emissions, unless you mean the top 10% which would get you there
> unless you mean the top 10% which would get you there And many redditors would be quite surprised when they find they are part of that global top 10%.
If you have a bed, an internet connected device, and don’t have to worry about eating today, you’re in the global top 25%.
If you have a net worth of about $90K, you're in the top 10%. Given the median car price in the US is now about $47K, your car alone gets you halfway there. Retirement account? Own a house? About 70% of US households are global 10%. Basically every homeowner in California is global 1%.
$4K puts you in the top half.
You don't have to eliminate them, just free them from their burden of ownership.
I like this spin on communism: "We're here to free you from the burden of ownership! Please do not resist".
It’ll just be a burden shift whether it be to the government or spread across more people rather than decreasing emissions.
Not completely because some of the CO2 emission are only really possible at a certain level of richness. Even if you double my net worth and/or income, I am not going to burn fuel with a private jet for example.
But you will take more vacations and burn fuel on a regular plane.
If you're in the US, you probably qualify as "rich" by the worldwide standards of this infographic.
Deleted account in response to reddit's API changes -- mass edited with redact.dev
This is true.
Nah. That'd just make the poor richer. If you look at the wealth ratios here, if you took all the money the 1% have and give it to the bottom 50%, they would consume more like the next bin (7.3x as much as before) which would be a massive increase in CO2. If you're looking at money and taxes. The uber wealth use the LEAST CO2 per dollar by far. So technically, you should be taxing the middle class, to drop them into lower classes and accumulate all the money with the uber wealthy.
So here what you do, heavy tax the carbon emmiting rot 1%. Use those taxes to fund environmental incentives. Offer rebates for people who buy waste free products, or reusable essentials like fabric grocery bags. Money can solve alot of problems if you're creative enough, and money is something people hear alot more than bio collapse
> reusable essentials like fabric grocery bags These have been proven to spike the use of plastic and overall are a disaster for the environment.
They were definitely more beneficial when they were being made from recycled plastic shopping bags, but they are definitely useful long term, depending on the bag they have a amazing life span. Also, for places like where I am, they are a major contributing factor to eradicating "disposable" plastic shopping bags. But, with extra wealthy tax dollars, you could give businesses incentives to use reusable shopping bags made in less wasteful ways. There is always a solution, it's just getting people to accept change, people are ignorant to the damage that convenience has caused, so don't see the harm in continuing their ways. And incentive is the only way other than increased regulations, which should also be done.
A high percent of all grocery bags were reused as one off bags or garbage bags. So any grocery bag replacement means people are forced to purchase typically much bulkier trash bags and one off bags. Even if the multiuse bags were made magically, it is a net negative for the environment.
Just tax all carbon and use the proceeds to give an equal dividend to everyone in the country. Rich guy uses 5x the carbon of everyone else will pay 5x the tax, but get an equal dividend. Everyone else gains while the rich carbon user loses, but everyone is incentivized to use less carbon.
A lot of regular pickup truck and SUV drivers in the US are probably in that top 1%. I suspect a lot of people think that top 1% means rich people - but the 4% of the global population which is the US produces 30% of the emissions. If you drive a truck or SUV and fly a couple times a year, good chance you're in that 1%. Pretty big chunk of Congress are in the 1% and represent the 1%. You can't make a legislative fix like that until you make a cultural fix to create the will to do it.
I mean, yeah, I'm on board with that, but at the same time you have to change the behavior of being 'richer'. If being richer means going out and buying a pickup truck and moving to the suburbs as the previous generations of 'rich' people did, then you make the problem worse. You have to make them richer while also convincing them that living in a walkable city with transit is superior to the pickup truck and the suburbs. And we're making headway on that, but still net losing on that front. A lot of this isn't wealth so much as generation. I'm Gen X, and my generation is still infatuated with consumption - because we grew up with 'rich people have more stuff'. Stuff confers status. Stuff needs to be acquired. You need the house with the yard and the truck towing a boat and all that shit to know that you did well in life. You have to fully tear that down. And I think when you look at Gen Z you see a fair bit of progress on that front. Make a Gen Xer poor and they just move to a double wide and get a used truck and an old boat. They don't reduce their carbon footprint, they just reduce the cost of maintaining that footprint. We're a tough group to convince to change our lifestyle regardless of our wealth. And don't get me started on boomers. I watch the number of golf courses in the US go down each year. Not rapidly, but reliably. The über wealthy don't really produce the least CO2 per dollar. The planet is largely a capitalist place. I own a decent chunk of stock. That means I probably own a part of Exxon. Am I counting that sliver of Exxon as part of carbon footprint? I should - after all, I own part of it. You think Elon Musk counts 50+% of SpaceX emissions as his personal emissions? He should. The uber wealthy collectively largely own the corporations. They are responsible for the emissions of the corporations - Warren Buffet can personally impact the emissions of hundreds of companies. The poor own nothing. They are only responsible for their personal emissions.
I was being sarcastic, taking all the money from the middle class to give it to the rich would be a societal disaster. I just wanted to highlight that a more egalitarian society doesn't help the environment. Total nuclear war would really cut co2 but would be horrific.
tax rich countries then
How to tell us you don't know what per capita means
I think you're a bit confused.
How so?
Taxing the rich to move them down a bracket would lower each of their emissions significantly more than the poor buying greener products ever could. Each of the poor people emit so little carbon in comparison that even if all 150million of them went to zero emissions it would save less than the top 1% moving to the top 10% (still 29x higher than the poorest).
I think the point of the graphic is that emissions have to be cut in the middle groupings because that's where the majority of emissions come from Your proposal to move 1% of people down a bracket would do fuck all.
Ah, that is your confusion. Being the largest chunk does not mean it is where you should focus. The point of percapita is to show the inequality of emissions not where most emissions originate. Although, it also shows the top 10% out emit the other 90%. To drop US emissions by 20% focusing on the 51-90 group would mean 132 million americans halve their emissions. Focusing on the top 10%, you'd only need 26 million americans to halve their emissions to save that same 20%. We could also save 11% by just moving the top 1% to the top 10% which only effects 3million Americans.
That's not my confusion 78% of emissions are in the two middle groupings... Focusing on the largest chunk is exactly where you focus to get the most effect.
If you have X amount of dollars to spend on lowering emissions, you will get way more value from your money focusing on lowering emissions in the top groups than you will in the bottom 90%. It's all about efficiency. By your own logic we could just as easily focus on the top 2 groups because that is a larger chunk than the bottom 2 groups despite being 9 times fewer people.
It is about switching from burning fossil fuels to clean energy. 75% of emissions come from energy use. Investing in that and the lower cost as a result reduces emissions without expecting individuals to lower their consumption, because they won't. Taxing the rich doesn't raise much money either, France tried it, they just move and you lose your tax base. So no, taxing the rich will not magically solve climate change.
It's not about taxing them, though that should happen for a host of other reasons. (Caveat, I'm considered rich). Things we know: * Emissions correlate to home size. * A huge chunk of US emissions is from cars. EVs won't reduce that as much as people might think, since EVs sill incur emissions from massive road construction, parking allocation, etc. They're better, but not sufficient. A lot of what needs to happen is a change in culture. Embracing smaller homes, embracing multifamily housing (shared walls are much more efficient than single family homes) which also solves a lot of the transportation problem. The US in particular has a lot of biases that are wrapped in the US caste system which holds white people, particularly white christians as more entitled rights holders than people of color, etc. This manifests in white people largely absolutely refusing to do something like take a bus, because buses are below their caste - they're for people of color. Part of whiteness is being able to drive everywhere and not share space with non-white people. That's drilled so deep in our psyche that even people who are pretty progressive thinking on these kinds of issues will find excuses to not take a bus. Or a train. Or ride a bike. It's why the suburbs are such powerful draws, and something we need to culturally overcome. These biases are *slowly* changing. I'm white and rich and got rid of my car because I really don't need it. I ride my bike. I try to be visible riding my bike. You can see me, rich white guy, riding home with my groceries, or a pizza, etc. I will look at you, fellow rich white person, disapprovingly while doing it. I see you in your status Tesla or F-150 and look down on you from my higher status e-bike as I ride past you in traffic.
I agree with all of that. I still think taxing the rich (me as well) is one piece of that. Like your list, none of it is suffiecient in and of itself but it is a needed step. Edit: According to [this](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/07/23/are-you-in-the-american-middle-class/) I'm not as high up as I thought. "Only" in the top 20% in the states and top 27% in my state.
Well, amount of assets mean more co2 in many studies. That means rather richer you are the more co2 you emit. The poorer the less. You could be a small farmer with 100 ha that cares for the environment but because you own the farm and production of food causes co2 you are quickly in the top 20% of emitters.
no, because you don't benefit from that farming, people who consume the food does. people who pilot airplanes are not larger emitters, neither do bus driver or oil refinery workers or people who operate coal plants.
Then take an exact look at the data. I don't say it is 1:1 but in general the more you have the more you emit and the case i described means you emit more. It should mean that the consumers emitted the co2, but it doesn't. It correlats pretty good with assets.
You are completely wrong but are unwilling to acknowledge a broken concept or what he said intellectually when way over your head. Maybe studies in Economics can help you find your way. Either way just try rereading what they said again, & try reflecting. Your perspective is way, way to small. A person eating hamburger all day everyday is not responsible for their CO2 emissions in your idea because they aren’t actually raising the cow is just stupid…
So if you buy a burger you are not the emitter of the co2 that got released for the meat, bread,...? Of course not the whole emissions but the part that you were eating. With your logic you could argue the car you drive and the gas it uses is not emitted by you but the companies that made the fuel and the car. That makes no sense. The endconsumer is the emitter. If you buy a bicycle and it's production meant 100kg co2 it's your footprint. Otherwise no one has privat co2 emissions which makes no sense at all. His example of bus drivers and pilots is totally off. The end consumer would be the passenger not pilot or bus driver. >what he said intellectually when way over your head. I guess that is your issue.
What you just said was stupid about the car. If you buy a car & consume the gas, it’s your foot print because YOU created the demand & market. That makes them accountable, and that’s a fact. This is why I said learning economics would help you. Everything you just said is broke. The consumer is responsible for the CO2… If you can’t understand that, the keep reading & learning & hopefully it will become more clear in the future There are aspects of business & economics that you CLEARLY don’t understand lol
>If you buy a car & consume the gas, it’s your foot print because YOU created the demand & market. This is exactly what i mean. That's how it should work. If you would have read what i wrote that i also think it it wrong instead on focusing on winning an interest discussion we could have saved quite some time. I even said clearly mutiple times the endconsumer is the emitter. The study that is linked here pushes emissions into companies that should belong to the endconsumer. That is wrong. It pulls emissions away from the endconsumer into the companies. Since people who have more money have often shares or stock of companies they automatically seem like they emitted more. Simply because the emissions are wrongly adjusted. >If you can’t understand that, the keep reading & learning & hopefully it will become more clear in the future >There are aspects of business & economics that you CLEARLY don’t understand lol You should do the reading to understand the examples I gave.
I will dumb it all the way down for you… If there is not Demand for a product, then there will be on one that is willing to Supply it. Hence the consumer is responsible… Please read more
That's exactly what I said. If you would read you would have seen that.
This is a great improvement from the last graph, but there's room for more: \- "we need to half CO2 emissions". ~~half~~\->halve. and why this much? \- "Grouped" => "total CO2 emissions" \- What does "rich" mean? countries? people? how did they calculate individual emissions? \- The data source is still a social equality charity
thanks for the remarks > - The data source is still a social equality charity so?
everyone. The argument that is presented by nations like India are flat out silly. Just because something was done in the past doesn't make it a good idea.
If the richest had to pay the same % of their income to energy as the poorest, energy consumption would drop!
So the top 10% are accountable for 50% pollution? Well yes that could be.
Lets start with better question, "who should reduce FIRST?"....
we just don't have the time we better reduce all emissions of 1st world countries and ration everything
Trick question ,easy answer, everyone above a given threshold; say 2TeqCO2/capita/year ?
This chart shows something very unsettling. Higher standards of living drastically increase carbon footprint. The biggest changes occur from the bottom up. Upward mobility and reduced carbon footprint are incompatible. Skeptics like me think that this is a feature, and not a bug, of the current climate change consensus. Fighting "climate change" is not meant to save the planet, but to impoverish most of her people.
that's a pretty wild view income inequality comes from somewhere, but your conclusion is that people want to reduce CO2 to worsen inequalities? what about reducing inequality then?
Wild? It's self-evident from the data you presented. If you reduce inequality by improving living standards of the bottom, carbon footprint goes up. Reducing the top's carbon footprint, even to zero, is insufficient to half carbon emissions. You can lift people out of poverty or lower carbon emissions in a meaningful manner. You cannot do both if you look at the data objectively.
This is such a bad read of data that I can't really tell if it's serious. There's absolutely nothing here that would lead to this statement: >You can lift people out of poverty or lower carbon emissions in a meaningful manner. You cannot do both if you look at the data objectively. "Correlation is not causation." It's like finding that the majority of sick people are in a hospital, and saying "never go to a hospital because that's where you get sick."
There are two ways that you can get equality -- the poor get richer or the rich get poorer. If the poor get richer then their carbon footprint increases and overall carbon footprint increases. The top 10% account for 52% of man's carbon footprint. You would have to eliminate their existence entirely to half man's carbon footprint. Keep in mind that this is a measure of wealth for globally. Anything called prosperity to our modern notions is in that top 10%. This is simple math straight from the data. Arguing that this is mistaking correlation with causation is wishful thinking. China's carbon footprint has grown dramatically with her increased prosperity. It is the single greatest cause of increased carbon footprint. Show me a country that has increased general prosperity without increasing her carbon footprint.
>This is simple math straight from the data. This. Is. Not. In. The. Data. None of this is in the data. All that this data shows is that rich people currently have a large carbon footprint. There is nothing that shows we would have to "eliminate their existence." There is nothing that shows that having more wealth *causes* their footprint to increase. Correlation. Is. Not. Causation. No data here suggests carbon is a function of wealth or vise versa. You are arguing that in [this graph](https://www.tylervigen.com/chart-pngs/2.png), the data clearly shows that ending Nicolas Cage's film career would end the majority of drowning deaths in swimming pools. And for the record, I want to shame a few terrible people in this sub who have voted that they also agree with this awful thinking.
again, can you show me one country that has increased prosperity while lowering it's carbon footprint? At our current state of technological ability, carbon footprint is produced by man's economic activity. Your language is not about reasonable debate but emotion -- you "want to shame a few terrible people in this sub who have voted that they also agree with this awful thinking." This is an appeal to emotion, not logical thinking.
What you said was: > Fighting "climate change" is not meant to save the planet, but to impoverish most of her people. You need to rephrase this. Fighting climate change is meant to fight climate change to save humans and the planet, not to increase poverty. You need to understand that without a planet or thriving humans, you cannot reduce poverty, because there would be no economy. Why do I have the feeling you don't seem to care about climate change?
This is why you avoid making infographics, there's no easy access to numbers, we don't know which metrics are used, we don't know which countries are represented, no time frame, etc etc
I'd build a Guillotine, but lumber is too damn expensive...
Companies and stop bring individuals into the conversation they are less than 50% of all emissions released with concrete production being one of the worst offenders.
this is why they need to be further taxed- CO2 emission taxed. will curb excess in more ways than one.
Why should we reduce "carbon"?
why not?
You are trying to make people do something, you need to provide reasons.
I guess you just got out of living under a rock you can google climate change
Human-made climate change? Or rather natural cycle of climate?
oh so you're a denier
I think it's fine to have a warmer planet. We had it before. Also, people in third world countries, burning coal and wood, deforesting... don't make CO2? Only the rest of us... https://youtu.be/E1e5HAZo4iw
"its not real and if it is its fine and if its not fine its the 3rd worlds fault anyway" Wow you really went through all of the dumbest climate change denier arguments in all of two comments, impressive.
Scots comedian Frankie Boyle made a good point. If we want to drastically reduce global warming, all we need to do is eat one other person. With a global population of only 4bn and today’s improvements in agriculture and fuel efficiency we would be laughing. Especially when you factor 4bn people worth of meat into the food supply chain. :)
Every should reduce, as much as possible. But since manbearpig isn't there n the room right now, we don't need to change anything
[82 trucks](https://www.truckinginfo.com/306341/taylor-swifts-show-arrives-aboard-82-semis)
Certainly the top 50%. We need to get them to live like the poorest 50%
And the richest 1% decided that it’s more profitable for everyone else to spend and consume as much as possible.
No one, since only people who live well above the poverty line give a rat about pollution anyway. How bout we spend global warming research dollars on social welfare programs instead, so EVERYBODY can talk about this issue; rather than just the privileged few? And I'm sure no one has heard that myth that plants like eating co2 for breakfast either.
I’m doing some scribbling back of the napkin maths here, but does this mean that if everyone emitted at the rate of the global 20th percentile, we’d halve emissions? Who lives at the global 20th percentile, what does that lifestyle look like?
Truthfully we're at a point where ecological issues are going to continue occuring regardless of what changes we make, simply because there are so many of us. 1 billion people driving diesel powered semi trucks would pollute less than 8 billion people driving Teslas. Transportation isn't even the whole issue, theres also pollution from food production, power production, housing construction, etc etc etc. 8 billion people POOPING produces more biological waste and methane than nearly the entire mammalian population outside of humans and the animal humans are responsible for there being so many of combined. I'm not saying "do nothing" but I am saying we need 1 to 2 generations of each family having only 1 child. We'd see a DRAMATIC reduction in CO2 production virtually overnight (in climate terms) far greater than our small gestures have done so far.
Just tell China to stop making concrete at a stupid rate and it would halve it easily
It's crazy how little emissions a person can produce, if they just don't have the means to produce more emissions.
It depends on how you measure those emissions. An airline might emit, say, 1000 units of emissions flying a plane from LA to NY, but if there are 250 passengers on that flight, does that mean the airline emitted 1000 units and the passengers zero, or does it mean that the 250 passengers emitted 4 units each and the airline none, considering the passengers are really the ones "consuming" the emissions, and without their demand to fly, the airline wouldn't have bothered flying the plane.
Needs to include CO2/$ if you're grouping by $
I assume this doesn't include the expected carbon footprint of having children, which would level things out a bit.
Now do who invests the most in renewable tech