I said some time ago on here that I've been aware that we've been abusing the Earth's natural resources, exploiting its rare Earth materials, dumping thousands of tons of plastic into its seas and oceans and our own effluent into our rivers and streams, for years.
‐--------------------
On a thread about the climate emergency this seems like a good starting point for finding common ground.
I haven't read all of your posts in detail, so please forgive any questions that require repetition. If I recall correctly, you are not in favour of strong state intervention into people's lives.
I'm assuming you would say that the above(quoted actions) are contributing to climate change. How would you suggest we go about changing these practices?
I'd be interested in @Redskin's reply, because I think I'm probably on the same page as him.
This thread appears to be going around in circles with a clear division based on political grounds, becoming apparent.
Everyone agrees that Climate change is influenced by the actions of mankind.
Everyone cares about the environment and wants clean air and oceans.
In a nutshell, one side believes that rich people and their over consumption of beef, travel etc is the primary problem, solve that and we'll be fine.
Whilst the other (my side) believes that overpopulation, coupled with making vast numbers of people poorer by imposing Green taxes, limiting drilling etc (thus making energy more expensive) actually exasperates the problem rather than improving it, ie shooting ourselves in the foot.
Poorer people are more likely to pollute the planet because their primary focus is quite rightly on feeding themselves and their children, rather than having environmental concerns.
Things like paying to take their rubbish to the tip, or having to pay large electric bills, are to be avoided, whilst installing solar panels or buying electric cars are out of the question for them. Cooking on an open fire costs next to nothing, burning garbage costs nothing, throwing effluent into the waterways costs nothing, etc etc
An ever increasing population, coupled with a decreasing supply, increases costs, people get poorer, pollution gets worse, as does global warming.
Literally no-one, anywhere, thinks this.
He does have a point though. Wood-burning stoves have massively increased in popularity in a response to net-zero ambitions raising the price of energy.
Totally counterproductive.
My point was in reference to the suggestion (which I emboldened) that "solving" the over consumption of beef and travel means "we'll be fine". No-one has ever suggested that, as far as I can tell. (Unless anyone cares to say they do think this..?)
If you have to illustrate that combating climate change is a dichotomy, by misrepresenting one "side" of that dichotomy, then you're probably wrong to think, in the first place, that there are "two sides". It's footballification, red in tooth and claw.
There are lots of solutions, none of which is the silver bullet, but some of which, when combined, can halt the crisis.
My view is that reducing beef consumption, lowering the carbon cost of travel, using taxes to "nudge" consumers - and producers - into better actions, reducing fossil fuel consumption, driving down the cost of extracting and consuming renewable energy and switching from fossil fuel powered private and public transport to renewables would all have positive effects, hopefully ameliorating the harm we've already done. But I think some "solutions" - such as attempting to reduce the global human population - are so far fetched and would require so many decades to have any measurable effect - that they should be off the table.
No-one will agree with everything I have said, but lots of people will agree with bits of it. In that way, it's very definitely not a "two sides" thing.
Noble ambitions sure, but a very hard sell when (1) people are very used to cheap travel and cheap food in the UK, (2) people have very little disposable income and are sick of prices going up, and (3) other countries like the USA and Canada have declared war on net zero initiatives and are about to flood North America with cheap energy.
Number (3) in particular scares me. The disparity in wealth between us and the Americans is getting worse and a lot of it is politically driven.
There is massive scope for a green driven economic boom through investment in this the kind of boom that would actually make everyone better off. Unfortunately the last 14 years of the Tories and particularly the last 4 where they pulled back on every bit of green investment (including in a public, private, academia partnership researching solid state batteries that would literally be revolutionary) has pulled us out the race for that. China is racing ahead and we will be slave to them for the next 100 years paying for every bit of technology. The solid state battery research has been relocated to there.
Just 1% of the world’s population was responsible for almost a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions growth over 1990-2019.
Given this information, anyone thinking that "poorer people are more likely to pollute the planet because their primary focus is quite rightly on feeding themselves and their children, rather than having environmental concerns" ought to reconsider their viewpoint.
Chizz, does 'responsible for' mean that it is their personal usage, or does that mean that they own/control businesses responsible for that quarter. If it's the former then there really ought to be some controls over their energy usage. If it's the latter, then that's an understandable consequence of the positions they hold in society.
Humans release billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. However, these emissions are disproportionately produced by wealthier people, who typically live more carbon-intensive lifestyles.
When assessing individual contributions to global warming, researchers often focus on emissions from goods and services that people consume. This study presents an update to this method by also including the emissions from a person’s investments in their greenhouse gas footprint. This allows the study to more accurately represent the emissions of the wealthy – which largely come from investments. It assesses three components of a person’s greenhouse gas footprint. The first is private consumption – made up of emissions from the direct use of fuel and emissions embedded into goods and services. The second includes emissions from government spending in that person’s country – such as government administration, public roads or defence.
We can't divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint. That absolves everyone of the responsibility for GHG emissions from business. This study enables an equitable measure, showing both the direct consumption carbon costs and the effects of private businesses and government services.
Thanks for the quick response. Maybe there's something that I don't get, but I think we can and we should divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint, because it gives a false picture. That 25% figure makes it look like those people are just jollying their way through gallons of oil when that may not be the case at all. Those emissions might be perfectly legitimate bi-products of the work they are doing and we have no way of judging whether they are reasonable or not if it's all lumped in with emissions made by the same people as consumers. Business emissions need to be attributable to the business, not to the individuals who own or control it.
I respectfully completely disagree. The cost of the emissions of a business ought to be apportioned to the owners of that business. Otherwise, no-one can be held accountable.
I know socialists love to blame the rich, but how can one man, Elon Musk have all the emissions produced by, Tesla, Starlink, Twitter etc, attributed to him personally, and how do you want him personally to be "held accountable" ?
Imprisonment, close down his companies?
Obviously, they're not. But I am sure you don't need me to explain that to you.
The academic study was put together to cover all GHG emissions, whether they were caused individually, created as a by-product of government services or as a result of businesses which could not be attributed to individual consumers. So, ownership of carbon-emitting businesses were taken into account when compiling the study.
Is it right that Teslas, produced by a a company owned by an individual are apportioned equitably between those that buy and use them and those that own the business that creates them? Lucas Chancel, the Associate Professor at Sciences Po, Co-Director of the World Inequality Lab at the Paris School of Economics and Senior advisor at the European Tax Observatory thinks it's useful, interesting, informative information seems to think so. I wouldn't argue with him.
I think people who cause the most environmental damage should be accountable. And they should be encouraged - if necessary by taxation - to mitigate the effects of their own, attributed emissions.
Elon Musk does this - to an extent - with the carbon credits he sells, making up a substantial portion of Tesla's profits. Perhaps you think no-one should be held accountable for the greenhouse gas emissions their companies cause.
Not what you said to Stig earlier though was it !
Quote
"The cost of the emissions of a business ought to be apportioned to the owners of that business. Otherwise, no-one can be held accountable"
I genuinely have no idea what you're talking about.
I told Stig I think owners of businesses that emit the most greenhouse gases should be held accountable. And, in answer to your question about whether Elon Musk should be imprisoned, I said I think people who cause the most environmental damage should be held accountable.
If you can show me where there's an inconsistency, I'll explain it to you.
I said some time ago on here that I've been aware that we've been abusing the Earth's natural resources, exploiting its rare Earth materials, dumping thousands of tons of plastic into its seas and oceans and our own effluent into our rivers and streams, for years.
‐--------------------
On a thread about the climate emergency this seems like a good starting point for finding common ground.
I haven't read all of your posts in detail, so please forgive any questions that require repetition. If I recall correctly, you are not in favour of strong state intervention into people's lives.
I'm assuming you would say that the above(quoted actions) are contributing to climate change. How would you suggest we go about changing these practices?
I'd be interested in @Redskin's reply, because I think I'm probably on the same page as him.
This thread appears to be going around in circles with a clear division based on political grounds, becoming apparent.
Everyone agrees that Climate change is influenced by the actions of mankind.
Everyone cares about the environment and wants clean air and oceans.
In a nutshell, one side believes that rich people and their over consumption of beef, travel etc is the primary problem, solve that and we'll be fine.
Whilst the other (my side) believes that overpopulation, coupled with making vast numbers of people poorer by imposing Green taxes, limiting drilling etc (thus making energy more expensive) actually exasperates the problem rather than improving it, ie shooting ourselves in the foot.
Poorer people are more likely to pollute the planet because their primary focus is quite rightly on feeding themselves and their children, rather than having environmental concerns.
Things like paying to take their rubbish to the tip, or having to pay large electric bills, are to be avoided, whilst installing solar panels or buying electric cars are out of the question for them. Cooking on an open fire costs next to nothing, burning garbage costs nothing, throwing effluent into the waterways costs nothing, etc etc
An ever increasing population, coupled with a decreasing supply, increases costs, people get poorer, pollution gets worse, as does global warming.
Literally no-one, anywhere, thinks this.
He does have a point though. Wood-burning stoves have massively increased in popularity in a response to net-zero ambitions raising the price of energy.
Totally counterproductive.
My point was in reference to the suggestion (which I emboldened) that "solving" the over consumption of beef and travel means "we'll be fine". No-one has ever suggested that, as far as I can tell. (Unless anyone cares to say they do think this..?)
If you have to illustrate that combating climate change is a dichotomy, by misrepresenting one "side" of that dichotomy, then you're probably wrong to think, in the first place, that there are "two sides". It's footballification, red in tooth and claw.
There are lots of solutions, none of which is the silver bullet, but some of which, when combined, can halt the crisis.
My view is that reducing beef consumption, lowering the carbon cost of travel, using taxes to "nudge" consumers - and producers - into better actions, reducing fossil fuel consumption, driving down the cost of extracting and consuming renewable energy and switching from fossil fuel powered private and public transport to renewables would all have positive effects, hopefully ameliorating the harm we've already done. But I think some "solutions" - such as attempting to reduce the global human population - are so far fetched and would require so many decades to have any measurable effect - that they should be off the table.
No-one will agree with everything I have said, but lots of people will agree with bits of it. In that way, it's very definitely not a "two sides" thing.
Noble ambitions sure, but a very hard sell when (1) people are very used to cheap travel and cheap food in the UK, (2) people have very little disposable income and are sick of prices going up, and (3) other countries like the USA and Canada have declared war on net zero initiatives and are about to flood North America with cheap energy.
Number (3) in particular scares me. The disparity in wealth between us and the Americans is getting worse and a lot of it is politically driven.
You're absolutely right on this. It demonstrates an unbelievable lack of leadership from those nations.
In effect we can cause negative externalities to the rest of the world's population in order to benefit ourselves.
That's market failure in my opinion.
You can see it that way, or you can say that their governments have made a choice about whether to make life more affordable for its citizens and decided that's what they want to do.
We could do the same with North Sea oil, but have decided that impoverishing everyone is the preferred choice.
The obvious answer to me is to do a bit of both until such time that sustainable energy options are mature enough to stand on their own feet. I think that's the way to bring people along with you.
Except green energy is cheaper than oil gas or coal. We are an island and uniquely positioned in that sense for wind and tidal in particular. so I back us following that path as best for the economy and prices.
With thr new massive capacity offshore wind farm opening this year we should be able to do 79% of our annual energy usage from renewables. It's only our outdated pricing model keeping prices high.
Just 1% of the world’s population was responsible for almost a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions growth over 1990-2019.
Given this information, anyone thinking that "poorer people are more likely to pollute the planet because their primary focus is quite rightly on feeding themselves and their children, rather than having environmental concerns" ought to reconsider their viewpoint.
Chizz, does 'responsible for' mean that it is their personal usage, or does that mean that they own/control businesses responsible for that quarter. If it's the former then there really ought to be some controls over their energy usage. If it's the latter, then that's an understandable consequence of the positions they hold in society.
Humans release billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. However, these emissions are disproportionately produced by wealthier people, who typically live more carbon-intensive lifestyles.
When assessing individual contributions to global warming, researchers often focus on emissions from goods and services that people consume. This study presents an update to this method by also including the emissions from a person’s investments in their greenhouse gas footprint. This allows the study to more accurately represent the emissions of the wealthy – which largely come from investments. It assesses three components of a person’s greenhouse gas footprint. The first is private consumption – made up of emissions from the direct use of fuel and emissions embedded into goods and services. The second includes emissions from government spending in that person’s country – such as government administration, public roads or defence.
We can't divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint. That absolves everyone of the responsibility for GHG emissions from business. This study enables an equitable measure, showing both the direct consumption carbon costs and the effects of private businesses and government services.
Thanks for the quick response. Maybe there's something that I don't get, but I think we can and we should divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint, because it gives a false picture. That 25% figure makes it look like those people are just jollying their way through gallons of oil when that may not be the case at all. Those emissions might be perfectly legitimate bi-products of the work they are doing and we have no way of judging whether they are reasonable or not if it's all lumped in with emissions made by the same people as consumers. Business emissions need to be attributable to the business, not to the individuals who own or control it.
I respectfully completely disagree. The cost of the emissions of a business ought to be apportioned to the owners of that business. Otherwise, no-one can be held accountable.
I know socialists love to blame the rich, but how can one man, Elon Musk have all the emissions produced by, Tesla, Starlink, Twitter etc, attributed to him personally, and how do you want him personally to be "held accountable" ?
Imprisonment, close down his companies?
Proportionally tax those companies. It’s quite simple
So can we finally put to bed the notion that it's the worlds tiny proportion of Billionaires who are personally responsible for contributing so much to global warming?
Because as it turns out, the richest 1% only contributes 16% of global emissions, and even then, that richest 1% includes people earning anything over £112,500 (which in this day and age, isn't a huge salary)
How much better it would be if the oligarchs put their wealth to good use to reduce the gap between rich & poor.
Instead of putting a flag on Mars, they should be spending their money to reduce the drivers of Climate Change. Invest in green sustainable technology that will reduce bills for poorer people, not enrich themselves further by drilling for the fossil fuels that create greenhouse gases and pollute the air. Work on technology that will make solar panels, electric cars, heat pumps and insulation for homes cheaper so that everyone can afford them.
I wouldn't wish it on anyone, but it will take something like a hurricane that flattens Mar a Lago for a change of direction to take place.
As long as someone else has to solve the problem, nothing will ever get solved.
I wonder how many advocates for changes to other people’s lifestyles have needlessly appliances dishwashers, tumble dryers, heated steering wheels, or just cars?
Again discussing actions that can be taken on a thread for discussion is completely fine. No more unrealistic than people posting their wants on the transfer rumours thread. Also conversations on whatever forum have the ability to help people form opinions and so collective pressure may grow through either voting or consumption decisions. So yes it's still important to discuss.
Again many people on here have talked about their individual actions but the shouldn't need to in order to discuss something on an Internet forum.
Also point of fact. Dishwashers use less water and energy than washing by hand as long as they are 80% full.
Can you point me to this?
I find this hard to equate and need convincing we are comparing like with like.
A quick Google search will bring up an untold number of studies that prove the point that dishwashers are more eco friendly than handwashing, with the caveat that the energy required to manufacture the dishwasher isn't necessarily taken into account (exactly the same argument for and against EVs).
Just 1% of the world’s population was responsible for almost a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions growth over 1990-2019.
Given this information, anyone thinking that "poorer people are more likely to pollute the planet because their primary focus is quite rightly on feeding themselves and their children, rather than having environmental concerns" ought to reconsider their viewpoint.
Chizz, does 'responsible for' mean that it is their personal usage, or does that mean that they own/control businesses responsible for that quarter. If it's the former then there really ought to be some controls over their energy usage. If it's the latter, then that's an understandable consequence of the positions they hold in society.
Humans release billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. However, these emissions are disproportionately produced by wealthier people, who typically live more carbon-intensive lifestyles.
When assessing individual contributions to global warming, researchers often focus on emissions from goods and services that people consume. This study presents an update to this method by also including the emissions from a person’s investments in their greenhouse gas footprint. This allows the study to more accurately represent the emissions of the wealthy – which largely come from investments. It assesses three components of a person’s greenhouse gas footprint. The first is private consumption – made up of emissions from the direct use of fuel and emissions embedded into goods and services. The second includes emissions from government spending in that person’s country – such as government administration, public roads or defence.
We can't divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint. That absolves everyone of the responsibility for GHG emissions from business. This study enables an equitable measure, showing both the direct consumption carbon costs and the effects of private businesses and government services.
Thanks for the quick response. Maybe there's something that I don't get, but I think we can and we should divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint, because it gives a false picture. That 25% figure makes it look like those people are just jollying their way through gallons of oil when that may not be the case at all. Those emissions might be perfectly legitimate bi-products of the work they are doing and we have no way of judging whether they are reasonable or not if it's all lumped in with emissions made by the same people as consumers. Business emissions need to be attributable to the business, not to the individuals who own or control it.
I respectfully completely disagree. The cost of the emissions of a business ought to be apportioned to the owners of that business. Otherwise, no-one can be held accountable.
The business itself should be accountable. As should the individuals for their own 'personal' emissions. Jumbling the figures up just muddies the waters.
Just 1% of the world’s population was responsible for almost a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions growth over 1990-2019.
Given this information, anyone thinking that "poorer people are more likely to pollute the planet because their primary focus is quite rightly on feeding themselves and their children, rather than having environmental concerns" ought to reconsider their viewpoint.
Chizz, does 'responsible for' mean that it is their personal usage, or does that mean that they own/control businesses responsible for that quarter. If it's the former then there really ought to be some controls over their energy usage. If it's the latter, then that's an understandable consequence of the positions they hold in society.
Humans release billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. However, these emissions are disproportionately produced by wealthier people, who typically live more carbon-intensive lifestyles.
When assessing individual contributions to global warming, researchers often focus on emissions from goods and services that people consume. This study presents an update to this method by also including the emissions from a person’s investments in their greenhouse gas footprint. This allows the study to more accurately represent the emissions of the wealthy – which largely come from investments. It assesses three components of a person’s greenhouse gas footprint. The first is private consumption – made up of emissions from the direct use of fuel and emissions embedded into goods and services. The second includes emissions from government spending in that person’s country – such as government administration, public roads or defence.
We can't divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint. That absolves everyone of the responsibility for GHG emissions from business. This study enables an equitable measure, showing both the direct consumption carbon costs and the effects of private businesses and government services.
Thanks for the quick response. Maybe there's something that I don't get, but I think we can and we should divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint, because it gives a false picture. That 25% figure makes it look like those people are just jollying their way through gallons of oil when that may not be the case at all. Those emissions might be perfectly legitimate bi-products of the work they are doing and we have no way of judging whether they are reasonable or not if it's all lumped in with emissions made by the same people as consumers. Business emissions need to be attributable to the business, not to the individuals who own or control it.
I respectfully completely disagree. The cost of the emissions of a business ought to be apportioned to the owners of that business. Otherwise, no-one can be held accountable.
The business itself should be accountable. As should the individuals for their own 'personal' emissions. Jumbling the figures up just muddies the waters.
I disagree. If one man owns, outright, a business that pours GHGs into the atmosphere, day and night, who is responsible? The owner? Or no-one?
Just 1% of the world’s population was responsible for almost a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions growth over 1990-2019.
Given this information, anyone thinking that "poorer people are more likely to pollute the planet because their primary focus is quite rightly on feeding themselves and their children, rather than having environmental concerns" ought to reconsider their viewpoint.
Chizz, does 'responsible for' mean that it is their personal usage, or does that mean that they own/control businesses responsible for that quarter. If it's the former then there really ought to be some controls over their energy usage. If it's the latter, then that's an understandable consequence of the positions they hold in society.
Humans release billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. However, these emissions are disproportionately produced by wealthier people, who typically live more carbon-intensive lifestyles.
When assessing individual contributions to global warming, researchers often focus on emissions from goods and services that people consume. This study presents an update to this method by also including the emissions from a person’s investments in their greenhouse gas footprint. This allows the study to more accurately represent the emissions of the wealthy – which largely come from investments. It assesses three components of a person’s greenhouse gas footprint. The first is private consumption – made up of emissions from the direct use of fuel and emissions embedded into goods and services. The second includes emissions from government spending in that person’s country – such as government administration, public roads or defence.
We can't divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint. That absolves everyone of the responsibility for GHG emissions from business. This study enables an equitable measure, showing both the direct consumption carbon costs and the effects of private businesses and government services.
Thanks for the quick response. Maybe there's something that I don't get, but I think we can and we should divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint, because it gives a false picture. That 25% figure makes it look like those people are just jollying their way through gallons of oil when that may not be the case at all. Those emissions might be perfectly legitimate bi-products of the work they are doing and we have no way of judging whether they are reasonable or not if it's all lumped in with emissions made by the same people as consumers. Business emissions need to be attributable to the business, not to the individuals who own or control it.
I respectfully completely disagree. The cost of the emissions of a business ought to be apportioned to the owners of that business. Otherwise, no-one can be held accountable.
The business itself should be accountable. As should the individuals for their own 'personal' emissions. Jumbling the figures up just muddies the waters.
I disagree. If one man owns, outright, a business that pours GHGs into the atmosphere, day and night, who is responsible? The owner? Or no-one?
That’s a very unlikely scenario mate but I suspect you know that. But perhaps the shareholders should face a higher tax threshold for dividends drawn from such a company ?
Just 1% of the world’s population was responsible for almost a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions growth over 1990-2019.
Given this information, anyone thinking that "poorer people are more likely to pollute the planet because their primary focus is quite rightly on feeding themselves and their children, rather than having environmental concerns" ought to reconsider their viewpoint.
Chizz, does 'responsible for' mean that it is their personal usage, or does that mean that they own/control businesses responsible for that quarter. If it's the former then there really ought to be some controls over their energy usage. If it's the latter, then that's an understandable consequence of the positions they hold in society.
Humans release billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. However, these emissions are disproportionately produced by wealthier people, who typically live more carbon-intensive lifestyles.
When assessing individual contributions to global warming, researchers often focus on emissions from goods and services that people consume. This study presents an update to this method by also including the emissions from a person’s investments in their greenhouse gas footprint. This allows the study to more accurately represent the emissions of the wealthy – which largely come from investments. It assesses three components of a person’s greenhouse gas footprint. The first is private consumption – made up of emissions from the direct use of fuel and emissions embedded into goods and services. The second includes emissions from government spending in that person’s country – such as government administration, public roads or defence.
We can't divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint. That absolves everyone of the responsibility for GHG emissions from business. This study enables an equitable measure, showing both the direct consumption carbon costs and the effects of private businesses and government services.
Thanks for the quick response. Maybe there's something that I don't get, but I think we can and we should divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint, because it gives a false picture. That 25% figure makes it look like those people are just jollying their way through gallons of oil when that may not be the case at all. Those emissions might be perfectly legitimate bi-products of the work they are doing and we have no way of judging whether they are reasonable or not if it's all lumped in with emissions made by the same people as consumers. Business emissions need to be attributable to the business, not to the individuals who own or control it.
I respectfully completely disagree. The cost of the emissions of a business ought to be apportioned to the owners of that business. Otherwise, no-one can be held accountable.
The business itself should be accountable. As should the individuals for their own 'personal' emissions. Jumbling the figures up just muddies the waters.
I disagree. If one man owns, outright, a business that pours GHGs into the atmosphere, day and night, who is responsible? The owner? Or no-one?
Just 1% of the world’s population was responsible for almost a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions growth over 1990-2019.
Given this information, anyone thinking that "poorer people are more likely to pollute the planet because their primary focus is quite rightly on feeding themselves and their children, rather than having environmental concerns" ought to reconsider their viewpoint.
Chizz, does 'responsible for' mean that it is their personal usage, or does that mean that they own/control businesses responsible for that quarter. If it's the former then there really ought to be some controls over their energy usage. If it's the latter, then that's an understandable consequence of the positions they hold in society.
Humans release billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. However, these emissions are disproportionately produced by wealthier people, who typically live more carbon-intensive lifestyles.
When assessing individual contributions to global warming, researchers often focus on emissions from goods and services that people consume. This study presents an update to this method by also including the emissions from a person’s investments in their greenhouse gas footprint. This allows the study to more accurately represent the emissions of the wealthy – which largely come from investments. It assesses three components of a person’s greenhouse gas footprint. The first is private consumption – made up of emissions from the direct use of fuel and emissions embedded into goods and services. The second includes emissions from government spending in that person’s country – such as government administration, public roads or defence.
We can't divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint. That absolves everyone of the responsibility for GHG emissions from business. This study enables an equitable measure, showing both the direct consumption carbon costs and the effects of private businesses and government services.
Thanks for the quick response. Maybe there's something that I don't get, but I think we can and we should divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint, because it gives a false picture. That 25% figure makes it look like those people are just jollying their way through gallons of oil when that may not be the case at all. Those emissions might be perfectly legitimate bi-products of the work they are doing and we have no way of judging whether they are reasonable or not if it's all lumped in with emissions made by the same people as consumers. Business emissions need to be attributable to the business, not to the individuals who own or control it.
I respectfully completely disagree. The cost of the emissions of a business ought to be apportioned to the owners of that business. Otherwise, no-one can be held accountable.
The business itself should be accountable. As should the individuals for their own 'personal' emissions. Jumbling the figures up just muddies the waters.
I disagree. If one man owns, outright, a business that pours GHGs into the atmosphere, day and night, who is responsible? The owner? Or no-one?
That’s a very unlikely scenario mate but I suspect you know that. But perhaps the shareholders should face a higher tax threshold for dividends drawn from such a company ?
Yes, it's an extreme scenario used to illustrate the point.
I think that tax thresholds could be a very good way to disincentivise people from investing in high emission companies. A good reason for measuring both individuals' GHG emissions and the emissions of the investments they make is that, to a very large degree, government action (in the way you suggest it) can be meted out. If - for example - Americans comprise the highest numbers of individuals who invest in these dirty companies, then it's American governments that can impose these taxes.
Just 1% of the world’s population was responsible for almost a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions growth over 1990-2019.
Given this information, anyone thinking that "poorer people are more likely to pollute the planet because their primary focus is quite rightly on feeding themselves and their children, rather than having environmental concerns" ought to reconsider their viewpoint.
Chizz, does 'responsible for' mean that it is their personal usage, or does that mean that they own/control businesses responsible for that quarter. If it's the former then there really ought to be some controls over their energy usage. If it's the latter, then that's an understandable consequence of the positions they hold in society.
Humans release billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. However, these emissions are disproportionately produced by wealthier people, who typically live more carbon-intensive lifestyles.
When assessing individual contributions to global warming, researchers often focus on emissions from goods and services that people consume. This study presents an update to this method by also including the emissions from a person’s investments in their greenhouse gas footprint. This allows the study to more accurately represent the emissions of the wealthy – which largely come from investments. It assesses three components of a person’s greenhouse gas footprint. The first is private consumption – made up of emissions from the direct use of fuel and emissions embedded into goods and services. The second includes emissions from government spending in that person’s country – such as government administration, public roads or defence.
We can't divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint. That absolves everyone of the responsibility for GHG emissions from business. This study enables an equitable measure, showing both the direct consumption carbon costs and the effects of private businesses and government services.
Thanks for the quick response. Maybe there's something that I don't get, but I think we can and we should divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint, because it gives a false picture. That 25% figure makes it look like those people are just jollying their way through gallons of oil when that may not be the case at all. Those emissions might be perfectly legitimate bi-products of the work they are doing and we have no way of judging whether they are reasonable or not if it's all lumped in with emissions made by the same people as consumers. Business emissions need to be attributable to the business, not to the individuals who own or control it.
Indeed Stig. The super rich are generally huge employers.
You will notice that a correction had to be made because it originally stated "25% of global emissions", rather than "25% GROWTH in global emissions" which would have been incredibly misleading!
Not "incredibly" misleading. The per capita emissions of the top 1% grew by 26%; since 1990, the bottom 50% of the world population has been responsible for only 16% of all emissions growth, whereas the top 1% has been responsible for 23% of the total.
If you are referring to the report from the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), the richest 1% emit 16% of global emissions, which is very different to 25%.
And that to Lucas Chancel's report Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019, published on 29 September 2022% comprises emissions from their investments, not just their personal emissions.
To say that the Super rich are personally responsible for 25% of global emissions is devious, wrong and misleading.
No, I am not referring to a report from the Stockholm Environment Institure (SEI). Had I be doing so, I may well have put a link to the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). Instead, I was referring to Lucas Chancel's report Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019, published on 29 September 2022. That's why my post had a link to to Lucas Chancel's report Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019, published on 29 September 2022.
I don't know where you get the line "the Super rich are personally responsible for 25% of global emissions". And, frankly, I don't really care.
How much better it would be if the oligarchs put their wealth to good use to reduce the gap between rich & poor.
Instead of putting a flag on Mars, they should be spending their money to reduce the drivers of Climate Change. Invest in green sustainable technology that will reduce bills for poorer people, not enrich themselves further by drilling for the fossil fuels that create greenhouse gases and pollute the air. Work on technology that will make solar panels, electric cars, heat pumps and insulation for homes cheaper so that everyone can afford them.
I wouldn't wish it on anyone, but it will take something like a hurricane that flattens Mar a Lago for a change of direction to take place.
As long as someone else has to solve the problem, nothing will ever get solved.
I wonder how many advocates for changes to other people’s lifestyles have needlessly appliances dishwashers, tumble dryers, heated steering wheels, or just cars?
Again discussing actions that can be taken on a thread for discussion is completely fine. No more unrealistic than people posting their wants on the transfer rumours thread. Also conversations on whatever forum have the ability to help people form opinions and so collective pressure may grow through either voting or consumption decisions. So yes it's still important to discuss.
Again many people on here have talked about their individual actions but the shouldn't need to in order to discuss something on an Internet forum.
Also point of fact. Dishwashers use less water and energy than washing by hand as long as they are 80% full.
Can you point me to this?
I find this hard to equate and need convincing we are comparing like with like.
A quick Google search will bring up an untold number of studies that prove the point that dishwashers are more eco friendly than handwashing, with the caveat that the energy required to manufacture the dishwasher isn't necessarily taken into account (exactly the same argument for and against EVs).
So I found this in the absence of a definitive study:
A dishwasher will generally use less water than washing dishes by hand. However, it can be a grey area as it depends how you hand-wash your dishes.
For example, some people use the tap to pre or post-rinse dishes. Some leave the tap running non-stop and others opt to fill the sink and leave the rinsing. Then there are washing-up bowls. Some fill the bowl right to the top, whereas others use a lot less water.
The reason I asked is because it doesn’t feel that way to me. Maybe I’m the odd one out but I do ‘pre wash’ a bit for the dishwasher and it doesn’t feel that I run the tap for vey long to fill the sink when doing a hand wash.
Still not fully convinced it’s a true / real world assertion that dishwashers are more efficient but I can (now) imagine how a study can be made to give that jmpression. Maybe a bit like WLTP figures for new cars?
Just 1% of the world’s population was responsible for almost a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions growth over 1990-2019.
Given this information, anyone thinking that "poorer people are more likely to pollute the planet because their primary focus is quite rightly on feeding themselves and their children, rather than having environmental concerns" ought to reconsider their viewpoint.
Chizz, does 'responsible for' mean that it is their personal usage, or does that mean that they own/control businesses responsible for that quarter. If it's the former then there really ought to be some controls over their energy usage. If it's the latter, then that's an understandable consequence of the positions they hold in society.
Humans release billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. However, these emissions are disproportionately produced by wealthier people, who typically live more carbon-intensive lifestyles.
When assessing individual contributions to global warming, researchers often focus on emissions from goods and services that people consume. This study presents an update to this method by also including the emissions from a person’s investments in their greenhouse gas footprint. This allows the study to more accurately represent the emissions of the wealthy – which largely come from investments. It assesses three components of a person’s greenhouse gas footprint. The first is private consumption – made up of emissions from the direct use of fuel and emissions embedded into goods and services. The second includes emissions from government spending in that person’s country – such as government administration, public roads or defence.
We can't divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint. That absolves everyone of the responsibility for GHG emissions from business. This study enables an equitable measure, showing both the direct consumption carbon costs and the effects of private businesses and government services.
Thanks for the quick response. Maybe there's something that I don't get, but I think we can and we should divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint, because it gives a false picture. That 25% figure makes it look like those people are just jollying their way through gallons of oil when that may not be the case at all. Those emissions might be perfectly legitimate bi-products of the work they are doing and we have no way of judging whether they are reasonable or not if it's all lumped in with emissions made by the same people as consumers. Business emissions need to be attributable to the business, not to the individuals who own or control it.
I respectfully completely disagree. The cost of the emissions of a business ought to be apportioned to the owners of that business. Otherwise, no-one can be held accountable.
The business itself should be accountable. As should the individuals for their own 'personal' emissions. Jumbling the figures up just muddies the waters.
I disagree. If one man owns, outright, a business that pours GHGs into the atmosphere, day and night, who is responsible? The owner? Or no-one?
Jeez, you can't make your mind up on this can you ! Earlier when I asked "how can one man, Elon Musk have all the emissions produced by, Tesla, Starlink, Twitter etc, attributed to him personally"
You replied: "Obviously, they're not. But I am sure you don't need me to explain that to you"
Just 1% of the world’s population was responsible for almost a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions growth over 1990-2019.
Given this information, anyone thinking that "poorer people are more likely to pollute the planet because their primary focus is quite rightly on feeding themselves and their children, rather than having environmental concerns" ought to reconsider their viewpoint.
Chizz, does 'responsible for' mean that it is their personal usage, or does that mean that they own/control businesses responsible for that quarter. If it's the former then there really ought to be some controls over their energy usage. If it's the latter, then that's an understandable consequence of the positions they hold in society.
Humans release billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. However, these emissions are disproportionately produced by wealthier people, who typically live more carbon-intensive lifestyles.
When assessing individual contributions to global warming, researchers often focus on emissions from goods and services that people consume. This study presents an update to this method by also including the emissions from a person’s investments in their greenhouse gas footprint. This allows the study to more accurately represent the emissions of the wealthy – which largely come from investments. It assesses three components of a person’s greenhouse gas footprint. The first is private consumption – made up of emissions from the direct use of fuel and emissions embedded into goods and services. The second includes emissions from government spending in that person’s country – such as government administration, public roads or defence.
We can't divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint. That absolves everyone of the responsibility for GHG emissions from business. This study enables an equitable measure, showing both the direct consumption carbon costs and the effects of private businesses and government services.
Thanks for the quick response. Maybe there's something that I don't get, but I think we can and we should divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint, because it gives a false picture. That 25% figure makes it look like those people are just jollying their way through gallons of oil when that may not be the case at all. Those emissions might be perfectly legitimate bi-products of the work they are doing and we have no way of judging whether they are reasonable or not if it's all lumped in with emissions made by the same people as consumers. Business emissions need to be attributable to the business, not to the individuals who own or control it.
I respectfully completely disagree. The cost of the emissions of a business ought to be apportioned to the owners of that business. Otherwise, no-one can be held accountable.
The business itself should be accountable. As should the individuals for their own 'personal' emissions. Jumbling the figures up just muddies the waters.
I disagree. If one man owns, outright, a business that pours GHGs into the atmosphere, day and night, who is responsible? The owner? Or no-one?
Jeez, you can't make your mind up on this can you ! Earlier when I asked "how can one man, Elon Musk have all the emissions produced by, Tesla, Starlink, Twitter etc, attributed to him personally"
You replied: "Obviously, they're not. But I am sure you don't need me to explain that to you"
Now you've flipped back again 🤣
Give him his due... Its like batting with a lolly stick.
Just 1% of the world’s population was responsible for almost a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions growth over 1990-2019.
Given this information, anyone thinking that "poorer people are more likely to pollute the planet because their primary focus is quite rightly on feeding themselves and their children, rather than having environmental concerns" ought to reconsider their viewpoint.
Chizz, does 'responsible for' mean that it is their personal usage, or does that mean that they own/control businesses responsible for that quarter. If it's the former then there really ought to be some controls over their energy usage. If it's the latter, then that's an understandable consequence of the positions they hold in society.
Humans release billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. However, these emissions are disproportionately produced by wealthier people, who typically live more carbon-intensive lifestyles.
When assessing individual contributions to global warming, researchers often focus on emissions from goods and services that people consume. This study presents an update to this method by also including the emissions from a person’s investments in their greenhouse gas footprint. This allows the study to more accurately represent the emissions of the wealthy – which largely come from investments. It assesses three components of a person’s greenhouse gas footprint. The first is private consumption – made up of emissions from the direct use of fuel and emissions embedded into goods and services. The second includes emissions from government spending in that person’s country – such as government administration, public roads or defence.
We can't divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint. That absolves everyone of the responsibility for GHG emissions from business. This study enables an equitable measure, showing both the direct consumption carbon costs and the effects of private businesses and government services.
Thanks for the quick response. Maybe there's something that I don't get, but I think we can and we should divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint, because it gives a false picture. That 25% figure makes it look like those people are just jollying their way through gallons of oil when that may not be the case at all. Those emissions might be perfectly legitimate bi-products of the work they are doing and we have no way of judging whether they are reasonable or not if it's all lumped in with emissions made by the same people as consumers. Business emissions need to be attributable to the business, not to the individuals who own or control it.
Indeed Stig. The super rich are generally huge employers.
You will notice that a correction had to be made because it originally stated "25% of global emissions", rather than "25% GROWTH in global emissions" which would have been incredibly misleading!
Not "incredibly" misleading. The per capita emissions of the top 1% grew by 26%; since 1990, the bottom 50% of the world population has been responsible for only 16% of all emissions growth, whereas the top 1% has been responsible for 23% of the total.
If you are referring to the report from the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), the richest 1% emit 16% of global emissions, which is very different to 25%.
And that to Lucas Chancel's report Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019, published on 29 September 2022% comprises emissions from their investments, not just their personal emissions.
To say that the Super rich are personally responsible for 25% of global emissions is devious, wrong and misleading.
No, I am not referring to a report from the Stockholm Environment Institure (SEI). Had I be doing so, I may well have put a link to the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). Instead, I was referring to Lucas Chancel's report Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019, published on 29 September 2022. That's why my post had a link to to Lucas Chancel's report Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019, published on 29 September 2022.
I don't know where you get the line "the Super rich are personally responsible for 25% of global emissions". And, frankly, I don't really care.
Well for starters, you reckoned that it was 23% right here:
"Not "incredibly" misleading. The per capita emissions of the top 1% grew by 26%; since 1990, the bottom 50% of the world population has been responsible for only 16% of all emissions growth, whereas the top 1% has been responsible for 23% of the total."
Just 1% of the world’s population was responsible for almost a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions growth over 1990-2019.
Given this information, anyone thinking that "poorer people are more likely to pollute the planet because their primary focus is quite rightly on feeding themselves and their children, rather than having environmental concerns" ought to reconsider their viewpoint.
Chizz, does 'responsible for' mean that it is their personal usage, or does that mean that they own/control businesses responsible for that quarter. If it's the former then there really ought to be some controls over their energy usage. If it's the latter, then that's an understandable consequence of the positions they hold in society.
Humans release billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. However, these emissions are disproportionately produced by wealthier people, who typically live more carbon-intensive lifestyles.
When assessing individual contributions to global warming, researchers often focus on emissions from goods and services that people consume. This study presents an update to this method by also including the emissions from a person’s investments in their greenhouse gas footprint. This allows the study to more accurately represent the emissions of the wealthy – which largely come from investments. It assesses three components of a person’s greenhouse gas footprint. The first is private consumption – made up of emissions from the direct use of fuel and emissions embedded into goods and services. The second includes emissions from government spending in that person’s country – such as government administration, public roads or defence.
We can't divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint. That absolves everyone of the responsibility for GHG emissions from business. This study enables an equitable measure, showing both the direct consumption carbon costs and the effects of private businesses and government services.
Thanks for the quick response. Maybe there's something that I don't get, but I think we can and we should divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint, because it gives a false picture. That 25% figure makes it look like those people are just jollying their way through gallons of oil when that may not be the case at all. Those emissions might be perfectly legitimate bi-products of the work they are doing and we have no way of judging whether they are reasonable or not if it's all lumped in with emissions made by the same people as consumers. Business emissions need to be attributable to the business, not to the individuals who own or control it.
I respectfully completely disagree. The cost of the emissions of a business ought to be apportioned to the owners of that business. Otherwise, no-one can be held accountable.
The business itself should be accountable. As should the individuals for their own 'personal' emissions. Jumbling the figures up just muddies the waters.
I disagree. If one man owns, outright, a business that pours GHGs into the atmosphere, day and night, who is responsible? The owner? Or no-one?
Jeez, you can't make your mind up on this can you ! Earlier when I asked "how can one man, Elon Musk have all the emissions produced by, Tesla, Starlink, Twitter etc, attributed to him personally"
You replied: "Obviously, they're not. But I am sure you don't need me to explain that to you"
Now you've flipped back again 🤣
I can explain it as many times as you want me to, but I can't understand it for you. All the pertinent details are here.
Obviously not all the GHG emissions from Tesla, Starlink, Twitter, etc are attributed to one person. Musk "only" owns about one-fifth of Tesla, two-fifths of Starlink and most of Twitter. That's one reason it would make no sense to attribute all the greenhouse gas emissions from those companies to him.
I will make the most important statistic as comprehensible as I possibly can. "The one per cent of people who contribute most to greenhouse gas emissions contribute much, much more than one per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions". If you still struggle with that, I'm afraid I cannot make it any easier to follow.
Just 1% of the world’s population was responsible for almost a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions growth over 1990-2019.
Given this information, anyone thinking that "poorer people are more likely to pollute the planet because their primary focus is quite rightly on feeding themselves and their children, rather than having environmental concerns" ought to reconsider their viewpoint.
Chizz, does 'responsible for' mean that it is their personal usage, or does that mean that they own/control businesses responsible for that quarter. If it's the former then there really ought to be some controls over their energy usage. If it's the latter, then that's an understandable consequence of the positions they hold in society.
Humans release billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. However, these emissions are disproportionately produced by wealthier people, who typically live more carbon-intensive lifestyles.
When assessing individual contributions to global warming, researchers often focus on emissions from goods and services that people consume. This study presents an update to this method by also including the emissions from a person’s investments in their greenhouse gas footprint. This allows the study to more accurately represent the emissions of the wealthy – which largely come from investments. It assesses three components of a person’s greenhouse gas footprint. The first is private consumption – made up of emissions from the direct use of fuel and emissions embedded into goods and services. The second includes emissions from government spending in that person’s country – such as government administration, public roads or defence.
We can't divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint. That absolves everyone of the responsibility for GHG emissions from business. This study enables an equitable measure, showing both the direct consumption carbon costs and the effects of private businesses and government services.
Thanks for the quick response. Maybe there's something that I don't get, but I think we can and we should divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint, because it gives a false picture. That 25% figure makes it look like those people are just jollying their way through gallons of oil when that may not be the case at all. Those emissions might be perfectly legitimate bi-products of the work they are doing and we have no way of judging whether they are reasonable or not if it's all lumped in with emissions made by the same people as consumers. Business emissions need to be attributable to the business, not to the individuals who own or control it.
I respectfully completely disagree. The cost of the emissions of a business ought to be apportioned to the owners of that business. Otherwise, no-one can be held accountable.
The business itself should be accountable. As should the individuals for their own 'personal' emissions. Jumbling the figures up just muddies the waters.
I disagree. If one man owns, outright, a business that pours GHGs into the atmosphere, day and night, who is responsible? The owner? Or no-one?
Richard Branson employes over 70k people world wide. There are probably hundreds of thousands more who support and supply his empire.
So is he a good man for giving hundreds of thousands of people a living or a bad man because of his environmental footprint
Just 1% of the world’s population was responsible for almost a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions growth over 1990-2019.
Given this information, anyone thinking that "poorer people are more likely to pollute the planet because their primary focus is quite rightly on feeding themselves and their children, rather than having environmental concerns" ought to reconsider their viewpoint.
Chizz, does 'responsible for' mean that it is their personal usage, or does that mean that they own/control businesses responsible for that quarter. If it's the former then there really ought to be some controls over their energy usage. If it's the latter, then that's an understandable consequence of the positions they hold in society.
Humans release billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. However, these emissions are disproportionately produced by wealthier people, who typically live more carbon-intensive lifestyles.
When assessing individual contributions to global warming, researchers often focus on emissions from goods and services that people consume. This study presents an update to this method by also including the emissions from a person’s investments in their greenhouse gas footprint. This allows the study to more accurately represent the emissions of the wealthy – which largely come from investments. It assesses three components of a person’s greenhouse gas footprint. The first is private consumption – made up of emissions from the direct use of fuel and emissions embedded into goods and services. The second includes emissions from government spending in that person’s country – such as government administration, public roads or defence.
We can't divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint. That absolves everyone of the responsibility for GHG emissions from business. This study enables an equitable measure, showing both the direct consumption carbon costs and the effects of private businesses and government services.
Thanks for the quick response. Maybe there's something that I don't get, but I think we can and we should divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint, because it gives a false picture. That 25% figure makes it look like those people are just jollying their way through gallons of oil when that may not be the case at all. Those emissions might be perfectly legitimate bi-products of the work they are doing and we have no way of judging whether they are reasonable or not if it's all lumped in with emissions made by the same people as consumers. Business emissions need to be attributable to the business, not to the individuals who own or control it.
I respectfully completely disagree. The cost of the emissions of a business ought to be apportioned to the owners of that business. Otherwise, no-one can be held accountable.
The business itself should be accountable. As should the individuals for their own 'personal' emissions. Jumbling the figures up just muddies the waters.
I disagree. If one man owns, outright, a business that pours GHGs into the atmosphere, day and night, who is responsible? The owner? Or no-one?
The business as a legal entity.
And, in that scenario, if the owner exercises control and closes the business, all the greenhouse gas emissions are ended. He is responsible for that GHG emission reduction. In the same way he is responsible for the GHG emissions up to that point.
If you view the owned business as a disparate, self-governing, external entity that acts entirely independently of its owners, then I will respectfully disagree. Someone - or some people - are responsible for the actions of every business; and should be accountable thereof. In my opinion.
Just 1% of the world’s population was responsible for almost a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions growth over 1990-2019.
Given this information, anyone thinking that "poorer people are more likely to pollute the planet because their primary focus is quite rightly on feeding themselves and their children, rather than having environmental concerns" ought to reconsider their viewpoint.
Chizz, does 'responsible for' mean that it is their personal usage, or does that mean that they own/control businesses responsible for that quarter. If it's the former then there really ought to be some controls over their energy usage. If it's the latter, then that's an understandable consequence of the positions they hold in society.
Humans release billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. However, these emissions are disproportionately produced by wealthier people, who typically live more carbon-intensive lifestyles.
When assessing individual contributions to global warming, researchers often focus on emissions from goods and services that people consume. This study presents an update to this method by also including the emissions from a person’s investments in their greenhouse gas footprint. This allows the study to more accurately represent the emissions of the wealthy – which largely come from investments. It assesses three components of a person’s greenhouse gas footprint. The first is private consumption – made up of emissions from the direct use of fuel and emissions embedded into goods and services. The second includes emissions from government spending in that person’s country – such as government administration, public roads or defence.
We can't divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint. That absolves everyone of the responsibility for GHG emissions from business. This study enables an equitable measure, showing both the direct consumption carbon costs and the effects of private businesses and government services.
Thanks for the quick response. Maybe there's something that I don't get, but I think we can and we should divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint, because it gives a false picture. That 25% figure makes it look like those people are just jollying their way through gallons of oil when that may not be the case at all. Those emissions might be perfectly legitimate bi-products of the work they are doing and we have no way of judging whether they are reasonable or not if it's all lumped in with emissions made by the same people as consumers. Business emissions need to be attributable to the business, not to the individuals who own or control it.
I respectfully completely disagree. The cost of the emissions of a business ought to be apportioned to the owners of that business. Otherwise, no-one can be held accountable.
The business itself should be accountable. As should the individuals for their own 'personal' emissions. Jumbling the figures up just muddies the waters.
I disagree. If one man owns, outright, a business that pours GHGs into the atmosphere, day and night, who is responsible? The owner? Or no-one?
Jeez, you can't make your mind up on this can you ! Earlier when I asked "how can one man, Elon Musk have all the emissions produced by, Tesla, Starlink, Twitter etc, attributed to him personally"
You replied: "Obviously, they're not. But I am sure you don't need me to explain that to you"
Now you've flipped back again 🤣
I can explain it as many times as you want me to, but I can't understand it for you. All the pertinent details are here.
Obviously not all the GHG emissions from Tesla, Starlink, Twitter, etc are attributed to one person. Musk "only" owns about one-fifth of Tesla, two-fifths of Starlink and most of Twitter. That's one reason it would make no sense to attribute all the greenhouse gas emissions from those companies to him.
I will make the most important statistic as comprehensible as I possibly can. "The one per cent of people who contribute most to greenhouse gas emissions contribute much, much more than one per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions". If you still struggle with that, I'm afraid I cannot make it any easier to follow.
Your sarcasm is about as good as your humour 🤣👍 Carry on wriggling.
Just 1% of the world’s population was responsible for almost a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions growth over 1990-2019.
Given this information, anyone thinking that "poorer people are more likely to pollute the planet because their primary focus is quite rightly on feeding themselves and their children, rather than having environmental concerns" ought to reconsider their viewpoint.
Chizz, does 'responsible for' mean that it is their personal usage, or does that mean that they own/control businesses responsible for that quarter. If it's the former then there really ought to be some controls over their energy usage. If it's the latter, then that's an understandable consequence of the positions they hold in society.
Humans release billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. However, these emissions are disproportionately produced by wealthier people, who typically live more carbon-intensive lifestyles.
When assessing individual contributions to global warming, researchers often focus on emissions from goods and services that people consume. This study presents an update to this method by also including the emissions from a person’s investments in their greenhouse gas footprint. This allows the study to more accurately represent the emissions of the wealthy – which largely come from investments. It assesses three components of a person’s greenhouse gas footprint. The first is private consumption – made up of emissions from the direct use of fuel and emissions embedded into goods and services. The second includes emissions from government spending in that person’s country – such as government administration, public roads or defence.
We can't divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint. That absolves everyone of the responsibility for GHG emissions from business. This study enables an equitable measure, showing both the direct consumption carbon costs and the effects of private businesses and government services.
Thanks for the quick response. Maybe there's something that I don't get, but I think we can and we should divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint, because it gives a false picture. That 25% figure makes it look like those people are just jollying their way through gallons of oil when that may not be the case at all. Those emissions might be perfectly legitimate bi-products of the work they are doing and we have no way of judging whether they are reasonable or not if it's all lumped in with emissions made by the same people as consumers. Business emissions need to be attributable to the business, not to the individuals who own or control it.
I respectfully completely disagree. The cost of the emissions of a business ought to be apportioned to the owners of that business. Otherwise, no-one can be held accountable.
The business itself should be accountable. As should the individuals for their own 'personal' emissions. Jumbling the figures up just muddies the waters.
I disagree. If one man owns, outright, a business that pours GHGs into the atmosphere, day and night, who is responsible? The owner? Or no-one?
Richard Branson employes over 70k people world wide. There are probably hundreds of thousands more who support and supply his empire.
So is he a good man for giving hundreds of thousands of people a living or a bad man because of his environmental footprint
Both, of course! It's great he employs lots of people and he should be given tax breaks to do so more. But it would be even better if he could reduce his companies' carbon footprints - and he should have some incentive to do that too.
I believe @cantersaddick mentioned this earlier, but in the UK we are paying more than we should for renewable energy, as the price paid is linked to the cost of the most expensive source which is usually gas.
The UK needs to move towards green, sustainable sources of energy as quickly as possible, so we don't fall behind and end of buying our energy from foreign sources. If we do that, countries like the USA, which have said they will 'drill drill drill' will ultimately pay the price when it has all gone and getting fossil fuels out of the ground costs them more and more. The flip side of that is that it'll probably be too late to save the planet.
Yet the UK’s reality is far more complicated. There are a few key reasons for this. The capacity of renewables is still not high enough to meet all demand.
The high upfront costs of building renewable energy infrastructure also drive up prices, as businesses recover their investment.
The biggest driver of high electricity prices, however, is the UK’s marginal pricing model, which means that electricity prices are mostly dictated by gas prices.
The model means that the price for electricity is based on the most expensive source which was used to meet energy demand across the UK, set at intervals of every half hour.
open image in gallery
The marginal pricing model means that the most expensive source of energy switched on to meet demand sets the price, even for cheaper generators. Cheapest sources of energy are switched on first, but cannot meet full demand. (Commons Library)
If both gas and renewables have been used in any half-hour period, the more expensive (gas) price will always be set overall, regardless of whether renewables made up the larger proportion.
Just 1% of the world’s population was responsible for almost a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions growth over 1990-2019.
Given this information, anyone thinking that "poorer people are more likely to pollute the planet because their primary focus is quite rightly on feeding themselves and their children, rather than having environmental concerns" ought to reconsider their viewpoint.
Chizz, does 'responsible for' mean that it is their personal usage, or does that mean that they own/control businesses responsible for that quarter. If it's the former then there really ought to be some controls over their energy usage. If it's the latter, then that's an understandable consequence of the positions they hold in society.
Humans release billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. However, these emissions are disproportionately produced by wealthier people, who typically live more carbon-intensive lifestyles.
When assessing individual contributions to global warming, researchers often focus on emissions from goods and services that people consume. This study presents an update to this method by also including the emissions from a person’s investments in their greenhouse gas footprint. This allows the study to more accurately represent the emissions of the wealthy – which largely come from investments. It assesses three components of a person’s greenhouse gas footprint. The first is private consumption – made up of emissions from the direct use of fuel and emissions embedded into goods and services. The second includes emissions from government spending in that person’s country – such as government administration, public roads or defence.
We can't divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint. That absolves everyone of the responsibility for GHG emissions from business. This study enables an equitable measure, showing both the direct consumption carbon costs and the effects of private businesses and government services.
Thanks for the quick response. Maybe there's something that I don't get, but I think we can and we should divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint, because it gives a false picture. That 25% figure makes it look like those people are just jollying their way through gallons of oil when that may not be the case at all. Those emissions might be perfectly legitimate bi-products of the work they are doing and we have no way of judging whether they are reasonable or not if it's all lumped in with emissions made by the same people as consumers. Business emissions need to be attributable to the business, not to the individuals who own or control it.
Indeed Stig. The super rich are generally huge employers.
You will notice that a correction had to be made because it originally stated "25% of global emissions", rather than "25% GROWTH in global emissions" which would have been incredibly misleading!
Not "incredibly" misleading. The per capita emissions of the top 1% grew by 26%; since 1990, the bottom 50% of the world population has been responsible for only 16% of all emissions growth, whereas the top 1% has been responsible for 23% of the total.
If you are referring to the report from the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), the richest 1% emit 16% of global emissions, which is very different to 25%.
And that to Lucas Chancel's report Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019, published on 29 September 2022% comprises emissions from their investments, not just their personal emissions.
To say that the Super rich are personally responsible for 25% of global emissions is devious, wrong and misleading.
No, I am not referring to a report from the Stockholm Environment Institure (SEI). Had I be doing so, I may well have put a link to the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). Instead, I was referring to Lucas Chancel's report Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019, published on 29 September 2022. That's why my post had a link to to Lucas Chancel's report Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019, published on 29 September 2022.
I don't know where you get the line "the Super rich are personally responsible for 25% of global emissions". And, frankly, I don't really care.
Well for starters, you reckoned that it was 23% right here:
"Not "incredibly" misleading. The per capita emissions of the top 1% grew by 26%; since 1990, the bottom 50% of the world population has been responsible for only 16% of all emissions growth, whereas the top 1% has been responsible for 23% of the total."
You're pointing to a sentence that doesn't contain either the words Super rich or the figure 25%. I think you ought to stop and take a breath right now.
I must say I admire all you people's effort in this. This is the hottest Not Sports Related thread. I don't see anyone SO enthusiastic about this topic in the place where I am. Everyone is worrying about their jobs, income, health, kids' education, all sorts of bills, etc. Basically financial survival issues. Totally two different worlds....
Exactly the point I was making earlier. People prioritise, especially poorer people with limited resources, and most people put those things above, above cutting their Carbon footprint. I believe that China is responsible for around 30% of Global emissions. So if the Chinese are not enthusiastic about the topic, that makes it incredibly difficult for the rest of the world to make much progress.
China makes a huge proportion of the worlds products so some of those emissions are shared. They have over 30% of the worlds solar production and harness more wind than any other country. They are increasing all of these quicker than any other country too, so although their carbon emissions are very high, they are taking green power poruction seriously.
Right, so they're keeping energy cheap by developing renewable methods alongside existing, proven methods of power generation.
Why can't we do that? Why are we putting so much reliance on wind and solar energy that, as of 2025, isn't up to it?
As I type this, we're importing nearly 10% of our energy needs, whilst renewables contribute a miserable 15%.
But spread over a year we get most of our energy from wind. That's pretty good going? It's hugely important source and isn't "up to it" on its own but it is proven. The reliance on the wind and sun is a bit annoying, more diversification needed there and storage but don't pretend they aren't a huge part of the overall solution.
This link is good to see where electricity is coming from. You might be using that already Nick. https://grid.iamkate.com/
Successful delivery of the Government's CPP (Clean Power Plan) will significantly reduce the UK’s damage to the global climate and cement the UK’s status as a global leader in the race to slow climate breakdown. Its climate benefit derives from the emissions saved by achieving a zero-carbon electricity system in 2030 instead of the 2035 date targeted by the previous government. However, the significant effort put in to achieving the CPP could easily be wasted if other decisions are not made wisely.
Air travel causes very significant climate damage. Even under the previous government’s Jet Zero Strategy, which is widely considered to be extremely optimistic about the scope for emissions reduction in aviation, there is expected to be very significant climate damage from air travel remaining in 2050. As a result, even after considering efficiency savings and alternative fuels, the expansion of Luton, Gatwick, and Heathrow airports would create very significant climate damage.
I think we are very good at saying what other people should be doing, and not very good at doing it ourselves.
This is a really good point. And it's why I think it's better to discuss "what should governments do?", rather than "what are you going to do?"
Yet you are the one who always asks certain posters what they would do.
No, I am more interested in what other posters think should be done, than what they actually do.
Make all public transport minimal cost or free and 24x 7 and tax private cars very heavily.
Come and live in the rural west country. A low wage area with scattered towns and villages, no rail network, and buses on a few strategic routes between the bigger towns.
Cars are essential to do anything that isn't walking distance.
Just 1% of the world’s population was responsible for almost a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions growth over 1990-2019.
Given this information, anyone thinking that "poorer people are more likely to pollute the planet because their primary focus is quite rightly on feeding themselves and their children, rather than having environmental concerns" ought to reconsider their viewpoint.
Chizz, does 'responsible for' mean that it is their personal usage, or does that mean that they own/control businesses responsible for that quarter. If it's the former then there really ought to be some controls over their energy usage. If it's the latter, then that's an understandable consequence of the positions they hold in society.
Humans release billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. However, these emissions are disproportionately produced by wealthier people, who typically live more carbon-intensive lifestyles.
When assessing individual contributions to global warming, researchers often focus on emissions from goods and services that people consume. This study presents an update to this method by also including the emissions from a person’s investments in their greenhouse gas footprint. This allows the study to more accurately represent the emissions of the wealthy – which largely come from investments. It assesses three components of a person’s greenhouse gas footprint. The first is private consumption – made up of emissions from the direct use of fuel and emissions embedded into goods and services. The second includes emissions from government spending in that person’s country – such as government administration, public roads or defence.
We can't divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint. That absolves everyone of the responsibility for GHG emissions from business. This study enables an equitable measure, showing both the direct consumption carbon costs and the effects of private businesses and government services.
Thanks for the quick response. Maybe there's something that I don't get, but I think we can and we should divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint, because it gives a false picture. That 25% figure makes it look like those people are just jollying their way through gallons of oil when that may not be the case at all. Those emissions might be perfectly legitimate bi-products of the work they are doing and we have no way of judging whether they are reasonable or not if it's all lumped in with emissions made by the same people as consumers. Business emissions need to be attributable to the business, not to the individuals who own or control it.
Indeed Stig. The super rich are generally huge employers.
You will notice that a correction had to be made because it originally stated "25% of global emissions", rather than "25% GROWTH in global emissions" which would have been incredibly misleading!
Not "incredibly" misleading. The per capita emissions of the top 1% grew by 26%; since 1990, the bottom 50% of the world population has been responsible for only 16% of all emissions growth, whereas the top 1% has been responsible for 23% of the total.
If you are referring to the report from the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), the richest 1% emit 16% of global emissions, which is very different to 25%.
And that to Lucas Chancel's report Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019, published on 29 September 2022% comprises emissions from their investments, not just their personal emissions.
To say that the Super rich are personally responsible for 25% of global emissions is devious, wrong and misleading.
No, I am not referring to a report from the Stockholm Environment Institure (SEI). Had I be doing so, I may well have put a link to the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). Instead, I was referring to Lucas Chancel's report Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019, published on 29 September 2022. That's why my post had a link to to Lucas Chancel's report Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019, published on 29 September 2022.
I don't know where you get the line "the Super rich are personally responsible for 25% of global emissions". And, frankly, I don't really care.
Well for starters, you reckoned that it was 23% right here:
"Not "incredibly" misleading. The per capita emissions of the top 1% grew by 26%; since 1990, the bottom 50% of the world population has been responsible for only 16% of all emissions growth, whereas the top 1% has been responsible for 23% of the total."
You're pointing to a sentence that doesn't contain either the words Super rich or the figure 25%. I think you ought to stop and take a breath right now.
So your "top 1%" isn't referring to the Super Rich? Righto.
And where did you get the 23% from? When it's only 16%. You're only about 44% off target 🤣🤣
Why not just for once admit that you're wrong? just as you were wrong about so many things relating to the current US President for so many years, over on the HOC Boards, or have the courage and honesty to admit that I was ultimately proved to have been correct?
I think we are very good at saying what other people should be doing, and not very good at doing it ourselves.
This is a really good point. And it's why I think it's better to discuss "what should governments do?", rather than "what are you going to do?"
Yet you are the one who always asks certain posters what they would do.
No, I am more interested in what other posters think should be done, than what they actually do.
Make all public transport minimal cost or free and 24x 7 and tax private cars very heavily.
Come and live in the rural west country. A low wage area with scattered towns and villages, no rail network, and buses on a few strategic routes between the bigger towns.
Cars are essential to do anything that isn't walking distance.
We'd have to imagine it with extensive and regular buses linking towns/villages up.
Comments
I told Stig I think owners of businesses that emit the most greenhouse gases should be held accountable. And, in answer to your question about whether Elon Musk should be imprisoned, I said I think people who cause the most environmental damage should be held accountable.
If you can show me where there's an inconsistency, I'll explain it to you.
With thr new massive capacity offshore wind farm opening this year we should be able to do 79% of our annual energy usage from renewables. It's only our outdated pricing model keeping prices high.
Because as it turns out, the richest 1% only contributes 16% of global emissions, and even then, that richest 1% includes people earning anything over £112,500 (which in this day and age, isn't a huge salary)
A quick Google search will bring up an untold number of studies that prove the point that dishwashers are more eco friendly than handwashing, with the caveat that the energy required to manufacture the dishwasher isn't necessarily taken into account (exactly the same argument for and against EVs).
That "only" is doing a massively disproportionate amount of heavy lifting.
Let's not forget that that 1% comprises not just "rich" individuals, but their investments also.
I think that tax thresholds could be a very good way to disincentivise people from investing in high emission companies. A good reason for measuring both individuals' GHG emissions and the emissions of the investments they make is that, to a very large degree, government action (in the way you suggest it) can be meted out. If - for example - Americans comprise the highest numbers of individuals who invest in these dirty companies, then it's American governments that can impose these taxes.
I don't know where you get the line "the Super rich are personally responsible for 25% of global emissions". And, frankly, I don't really care.
A dishwasher will generally use less water than washing dishes by hand. However, it can be a grey area as it depends how you hand-wash your dishes.
For example, some people use the tap to pre or post-rinse dishes. Some leave the tap running non-stop and others opt to fill the sink and leave the rinsing. Then there are washing-up bowls. Some fill the bowl right to the top, whereas others use a lot less water.
The reason I asked is because it doesn’t feel that way to me. Maybe I’m the odd one out but I do ‘pre wash’ a bit for the dishwasher and it doesn’t feel that I run the tap for vey long to fill the sink when doing a hand wash.
Still not fully convinced it’s a true / real world assertion that dishwashers are more efficient but I can (now) imagine how a study can be made to give that jmpression. Maybe a bit like WLTP figures for new cars?
I have a dishwasher so no axe to grind 🙂
Earlier when I asked "how can one man, Elon Musk have all the emissions produced by, Tesla, Starlink, Twitter etc, attributed to him personally"
You replied:
"Obviously, they're not. But I am sure you don't need me to explain that to you"
Now you've flipped back again 🤣
"Not "incredibly" misleading. The per capita emissions of the top 1% grew by 26%; since 1990, the bottom 50% of the world population has been responsible for only 16% of all emissions growth, whereas the top 1% has been responsible for 23% of the total."
Obviously not all the GHG emissions from Tesla, Starlink, Twitter, etc are attributed to one person. Musk "only" owns about one-fifth of Tesla, two-fifths of Starlink and most of Twitter. That's one reason it would make no sense to attribute all the greenhouse gas emissions from those companies to him.
I will make the most important statistic as comprehensible as I possibly can. "The one per cent of people who contribute most to greenhouse gas emissions contribute much, much more than one per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions". If you still struggle with that, I'm afraid I cannot make it any easier to follow.
There are probably hundreds of thousands more who support and supply his empire.
So is he a good man for giving hundreds of thousands of people a living or a bad man because of his environmental footprint
If you view the owned business as a disparate, self-governing, external entity that acts entirely independently of its owners, then I will respectfully disagree. Someone - or some people - are responsible for the actions of every business; and should be accountable thereof. In my opinion.
Carry on wriggling.
The UK needs to move towards green, sustainable sources of energy as quickly as possible, so we don't fall behind and end of buying our energy from foreign sources. If we do that, countries like the USA, which have said they will 'drill drill drill' will ultimately pay the price when it has all gone and getting fossil fuels out of the ground costs them more and more. The flip side of that is that it'll probably be too late to save the planet.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/energy-bills-gas-electricity-renewables-b2672760.html
In general, electricity from renewables should be cheaper to generate than from gas, which would bring bills down for consumers.
Yet the UK’s reality is far more complicated. There are a few key reasons for this. The capacity of renewables is still not high enough to meet all demand.
The high upfront costs of building renewable energy infrastructure also drive up prices, as businesses recover their investment.
The biggest driver of high electricity prices, however, is the UK’s marginal pricing model, which means that electricity prices are mostly dictated by gas prices.
The model means that the price for electricity is based on the most expensive source which was used to meet energy demand across the UK, set at intervals of every half hour.
If both gas and renewables have been used in any half-hour period, the more expensive (gas) price will always be set overall, regardless of whether renewables made up the larger proportion.
This link is good to see where electricity is coming from. You might be using that already Nick.
https://grid.iamkate.com/
Re the expansion of UK Airports:
Successful delivery of the Government's CPP (Clean Power Plan) will significantly reduce the UK’s damage to the global climate and cement the UK’s status as a global leader in the race to slow climate breakdown. Its climate benefit derives from the emissions saved by achieving a zero-carbon electricity system in 2030 instead of the 2035 date targeted by the previous government. However, the significant effort put in to achieving the CPP could easily be wasted if other decisions are not made wisely.
Air travel causes very significant climate damage. Even under the previous government’s Jet Zero Strategy, which is widely considered to be extremely optimistic about the scope for emissions reduction in aviation, there is expected to be very significant climate damage from air travel remaining in 2050. As a result, even after considering efficiency savings and alternative fuels, the expansion of Luton, Gatwick, and Heathrow airports would create very significant climate damage.
https://neweconomics.org/2025/01/airport-expansion-would-cancel-out-carbon-savings-of-clean-power-plan
Cars are essential to do anything that isn't walking distance.
And where did you get the 23% from? When it's only 16%.
You're only about 44% off target 🤣🤣
Why not just for once admit that you're wrong? just as you were wrong about so many things relating to the current US President for so many years, over on the HOC Boards, or have the courage and honesty to admit that I was ultimately proved to have been correct?