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?
The 1% refers to the most polluting percentile. It's not the richest 1%, it's the percentile that emits the most GHG. I can't make that any clearer.
The 23% comes from the link in the report. Click the link and it takes you directly to the place in the report extract that explains the 23%. I can't make that any clearer, either.
That link also, for what it's worth, takes you to the contact details of the report's author, to whom I'd suggest you address any more queries you have regarding the parts of the information you don't understand.
Quote:
"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."
So you were referring to a percentile were you, not to people?
Let me explain it to you: Last I checked "per capita" means "relating to people".
I can't make it any clearer 🤣
Fortunately, I can. Top 1% = top percentile.
And the "per capita" relates to?
Stop making a fool of yourself and just admit you're wrong for once.
I don't know if you're deliberately misunderstanding the data. If you don't know what percentile or per capita mean, then maybe it's not worth looking at the data.
The summary, which I think everyone else understands, is that the 1% of people responsible for the most greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for an extraordinary large proportion of the total greenhouse gas emissions.
Constantly trying to belittle someone who has been proven to have been so correct about so much, whilst you have been proven to have been spectacularly wrong, is really not a good look.
But you carry on digging, and don't try pretending that Billionaires are personally responsible for 23% of Global emissions as you did earlier in the thread before you got caught out.
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?
The 1% refers to the most polluting percentile. It's not the richest 1%, it's the percentile that emits the most GHG. I can't make that any clearer.
The 23% comes from the link in the report. Click the link and it takes you directly to the place in the report extract that explains the 23%. I can't make that any clearer, either.
That link also, for what it's worth, takes you to the contact details of the report's author, to whom I'd suggest you address any more queries you have regarding the parts of the information you don't understand.
Quote:
"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."
So you were referring to a percentile were you, not to people?
Let me explain it to you: Last I checked "per capita" means "relating to people".
I can't make it any clearer 🤣
Fortunately, I can. Top 1% = top percentile.
And the "per capita" relates to?
Stop making a fool of yourself and just admit you're wrong for once.
Per capita means per person. In the context of emissions, the "top 1% per capita" means the 1% of the population who emit the most. In terms of wealth it means the 1% of people who have the most money.
Looking forward to other fascinating anecdotes about lifer's domestic approach to mundane household chores and ablutions.
It's almost like the constant belittling and taking the piss out of people discussing the efforts they make towards preventing the climate disaster on a thread about discussing that, is if nothing else a bit of a dick move.
Nah it’s a joke. Get off your incredibly high horse.
Looking forward to other fascinating anecdotes about lifer's domestic approach to mundane household chores and ablutions.
It's almost like the constant belittling and taking the piss out of people discussing the efforts they make towards preventing the climate disaster on a thread about discussing that, is if nothing else a bit of a dick move.
Nah it’s a joke. Get off your incredibly high horse.
It's a joke you've made in pretty much the same way at least 8 times in the last 3 days from a very quick scan. It's always at the same couple of people when they are making a genuine point.
Rather than me being on a high horse. The condescending nature of your repetitive "joke" shows the opposit to be true.
Looking forward to other fascinating anecdotes about lifer's domestic approach to mundane household chores and ablutions.
It's almost like the constant belittling and taking the piss out of people discussing the efforts they make towards preventing the climate disaster on a thread about discussing that, is if nothing else a bit of a dick move.
Nah it’s a joke. Get off your incredibly high horse.
It's a joke you've made in pretty much the same way at least 8 times in the last 3 days from a very quick scan. It's always at the same couple of people when they are making a genuine point.
Rather than me being on a high horse. The condescending nature of your repetitive "joke" shows the opposit to be true.
Looking forward to other fascinating anecdotes about lifer's domestic approach to mundane household chores and ablutions.
It's almost like the constant belittling and taking the piss out of people discussing the efforts they make towards preventing the climate disaster on a thread about discussing that, is if nothing else a bit of a dick move.
Nah it’s a joke. Get off your incredibly high horse.
It's a joke you've made in pretty much the same way at least 8 times in the last 3 days from a very quick scan. It's always at the same couple of people when they are making a genuine point.
Rather than me being on a high horse. The condescending nature of your repetitive "joke" shows the opposit to be true.
So my repeating the joke means you are on a very low horse?
I know that’s not true. You and a couple of others are sanctimonious beyond belief, and not just on this subject.
…and I never look to have a laugh an any individuals expense. I have a laugh at silly or amusing content. If that content happens to come from the same people then that’s unfortunate, but I don’t track it.
Looking forward to other fascinating anecdotes about lifer's domestic approach to mundane household chores and ablutions.
It's almost like the constant belittling and taking the piss out of people discussing the efforts they make towards preventing the climate disaster on a thread about discussing that, is if nothing else a bit of a dick move.
Nah it’s a joke. Get off your incredibly high horse.
It's a joke you've made in pretty much the same way at least 8 times in the last 3 days from a very quick scan. It's always at the same couple of people when they are making a genuine point.
Rather than me being on a high horse. The condescending nature of your repetitive "joke" shows the opposit to be true.
So my repeating the joke means you are on a very low horse?
I know that’s not true. You and a couple of others are sanctimonious beyond belief, and not just on this subject.
…and I never look to have a laugh an any individuals expense. I have a laugh at silly or amusing content. If that content happens to come from the same people then that’s unfortunate, but I don’t track it.
Lol okay. You're yet to contribute anything to this thread other than digs at people that are trying things. You take people discussing options as people telling others what to do even though that has never happened on this thread. You don't have to agree with the things people are trying or you may not think it makes a difference but you could try not to be a colossal twat about it.
We get it you pretend to play devil's advocate to try and hide what are actually quite far right views and also avoid committing to an opinion. It's not constructive and it adds fuck all.
Maybe I am sanctimonious to be honest I don't give a fuck what you think. I'm passionate and have a basic level of empathy to care about others. People that hold opinions like yours have fucked the economy, society and the planet for my generation. Sorry for being upset that I basically have no prospect of a future.
Looking forward to other fascinating anecdotes about lifer's domestic approach to mundane household chores and ablutions.
It's almost like the constant belittling and taking the piss out of people discussing the efforts they make towards preventing the climate disaster on a thread about discussing that, is if nothing else a bit of a dick move.
Nah it’s a joke. Get off your incredibly high horse.
It's a joke you've made in pretty much the same way at least 8 times in the last 3 days from a very quick scan. It's always at the same couple of people when they are making a genuine point.
Rather than me being on a high horse. The condescending nature of your repetitive "joke" shows the opposit to be true.
So my repeating the joke means you are on a very low horse?
I know that’s not true. You and a couple of others are sanctimonious beyond belief, and not just on this subject.
…and I never look to have a laugh an any individuals expense. I have a laugh at silly or amusing content. If that content happens to come from the same people then that’s unfortunate, but I don’t track it.
Lol okay. You're yet to contribute anything to this thread other than digs at people that are trying things. You take people discussing options as people telling others what to do even though that has never happened on this thread. You don't have to agree with the things people are trying or you may not think it makes a difference but you could try not to be a colossal twat about it.
We get it you pretend to play devil's advocate to try and hide what are actually quite far right views and also avoid committing to an opinion. It's not constructive and it adds fuck all.
Maybe I am sanctimonious to be honest I don't give a fuck what you think. I'm passionate and have a basic level of empathy to care about others. People that hold opinions like yours have fucked the economy, society and the planet for my generation. Sorry for being upset that I basically have no prospect of a future.
Based on watching Chris Packham's excellent documentary chronicling the earth's long history, I was curious to know if / what volcanic activity could actually be attributed to climate change given that I already knew eruptions have massively contributed to it before. This is what I found for anyone interested. Our actions may indirectly cause an increase in activity, but that's not beyond doubt and they obviously didn't in the past.
Looking forward to other fascinating anecdotes about lifer's domestic approach to mundane household chores and ablutions.
It's almost like the constant belittling and taking the piss out of people discussing the efforts they make towards preventing the climate disaster on a thread about discussing that, is if nothing else a bit of a dick move.
Nah it’s a joke. Get off your incredibly high horse.
It's a joke you've made in pretty much the same way at least 8 times in the last 3 days from a very quick scan. It's always at the same couple of people when they are making a genuine point.
Rather than me being on a high horse. The condescending nature of your repetitive "joke" shows the opposit to be true.
So my repeating the joke means you are on a very low horse?
I know that’s not true. You and a couple of others are sanctimonious beyond belief, and not just on this subject.
…and I never look to have a laugh an any individuals expense. I have a laugh at silly or amusing content. If that content happens to come from the same people then that’s unfortunate, but I don’t track it.
Lol okay. You're yet to contribute anything to this thread other than digs at people that are trying things. You take people discussing options as people telling others what to do even though that has never happened on this thread. You don't have to agree with the things people are trying or you may not think it makes a difference but you could try not to be a colossal twat about it.
We get it you pretend to play devil's advocate to try and hide what are actually quite far right views and also avoid committing to an opinion. It's not constructive and it adds fuck all.
Maybe I am sanctimonious to be honest I don't give a fuck what you think. I'm passionate and have a basic level of empathy to care about others. People that hold opinions like yours have fucked the economy, society and the planet for my generation. Sorry for being upset that I basically have no prospect of a future.
Bingo.
That you try and hide your opinions behind this devil's advocate game shows you have an element of shame for them at the very least.
And yes before anyone says it I know he's getting his sad little rise out of getting me trigged. I know I shouldn't play his sad little game or let him deliberately take threads away from constructive conversation about the actual topic because he doesn't like said topic.
But guess what, I actually care about positive things rather than having entire personality being about things you don't like. I'm passionate about trying to make the world better so these sad games do get to me eventually.
And yes before anyone says it I know he's getting his sad little rise out of getting me trigged. I know I shouldn't play his sad little game or let him deliberately take threads away from constructive conversation about the actual topic because he doesn't like said topic.
But guess what, I actually care about positive things rather than having entire personality being about things you don't like. I'm passionate about trying to make the world better so these sad games do get to me eventually.
I’m not looking for a sad little rise, but interesting seeing what level you can achieve.
Based on watching Chris Packham's excellent documentary chronicling the earth's long history, I was curious to know if / what volcanic activity could actually be attributed to climate change given that I already knew eruptions have massively contributed to it before. This is what I found for anyone interested. Our actions may indirectly cause an increase in activity, but that's not beyond doubt and they obviously didn't in the past.
So volcanic eruptions were 30-50 times higher 10,000 years ago when emissions from human activity would have been miniscule compared to today. That's very interesting!
At least we can expect fewer tsunami's forming as a consequence of rising sea levels, so a benefit there.
Comments
But you carry on digging, and don't try pretending that Billionaires are personally responsible for 23% of Global emissions as you did earlier in the thread before you got caught out.
Rather than me being on a high horse. The condescending nature of your repetitive "joke" shows the opposit to be true.
I know that’s not true. You and a couple of others are sanctimonious beyond belief, and not just on this subject.
…and I never look to have a laugh an any individuals expense. I have a laugh at silly or amusing content. If that content happens to come from the same people then that’s unfortunate, but I don’t track it.
We get it you pretend to play devil's advocate to try and hide what are actually quite far right views and also avoid committing to an opinion. It's not constructive and it adds fuck all.
Maybe I am sanctimonious to be honest I don't give a fuck what you think. I'm passionate and have a basic level of empathy to care about others. People that hold opinions like yours have fucked the economy, society and the planet for my generation. Sorry for being upset that I basically have no prospect of a future.
https://www.polytechnique-insights.com/en/columns/planet/climate-change-will-also-have-an-impact-on-volcanic-eruptions/#:~:text=Climate change is altering geological,particular eruption to climate change.
But guess what, I actually care about positive things rather than having entire personality being about things you don't like. I'm passionate about trying to make the world better so these sad games do get to me eventually.
So volcanic eruptions were 30-50 times higher 10,000 years ago when emissions from human activity would have been miniscule compared to today. That's very interesting!
At least we can expect fewer tsunami's forming as a consequence of rising sea levels, so a benefit there.