this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
416 points (95.8% liked)

Green - An environmentalist community

5237 readers
5 users here now

This is the place to discuss environmentalism, preservation, direct action and anything related to it!


RULES:

1- Remember the human

2- Link posts should come from a reputable source

3- All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith


Related communities:


Unofficial Chat rooms:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 82 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Do your part and recycle your plastics, peasants!

Flies away in private jet

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (5 children)

A valid critique, but also worth mentioning, as discussed in the article, much of the GHG emissions for the top 10% (which includes households down to ~$200k) comes from passive income.

Friendly reminder to check who you bank with and what's in your 401k if you find yourself in that group.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Local credit union all the way!

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] flames5123 31 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I’d like to see it divided up even more on the top 10%. To be in the top 10% of household income in the US, you would need to earn $184,000/year. That’s just two people earning $92k/year, which is reasonable for mid career or early mid career in or near a city.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

TIL I'm in the top 10%. Yeah I can't believe I pollute any more than the other 90%. I work 100% from home, only my wife commutes 3 days a week. House is a modest 2200 sq ft. I don't have a boat or RV or plane or anything. I have some modest investment in hotels, cruise lines, and airlines (like under $5k all in). So yeah, this study leaves a lot to be desired.

EDIT: I guess my 401k or other managed investment accounts may have money in fossil fuels, but I'm not sure how I would know that or what exactly I would do about it. I have zero choice for the 401k as it's through my company. Other accounts maybe but how would one even track down managed investment accounts that don't include the largest pollution contributors?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Like lots of data, it's an average. There are lots of people, similar to you, who are not absolute gas guzzlers I'm the top 10%. The top 10% also includes the 1% and the .1%, which will greatly increase the average for the entire category.

Similarly to how an average doesn't tell the whole story, neither does how you invest. Assumptions have to be made to come up with these articles, such as how much carbon emissions are created through investments, which isn't exactly cut and dry.

TL;DR just because an article says that a group of people are the cause of something, it doesn't mean that everyone in the group is causing it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

It also depends on how the data is being used. For this study source of wages is being heavily weighted as well as what companies an individual chooses to invest in. So while household is the focus of the headline companies are more the focus, since by the metric used it seems as though someone who lives a green life style on paper living in a tent and biking but invests majority of their money and sees it grow would be a heavier polluter than someone who makes less but lives in a big house, drives suvs and pick ups, but doesn't see their net worth increase with most money not being used towards investments but paying off debt.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What I got from the study is source of your wage and investments have more to do with how much of a high polluter you are than what you choose to do individually. So you could be a high wage earner who lives in a tent and bikes and invests a majority of their money that grows in profit, and that because of the growing investments and employer make you a higher polluter than someone who lives in a huge house and drives suvs and pick ups and doesn't see their net worth grow due to so much of their stuff being financed.

With the money source being weighted this kind of feels more like an industry analysis despite the individual focus with how indirect it is, and based on some of comments here I guess people didn't read the article either not realizing it has less to do with individual efforts like solar or private jets. At least that's what I got from my attempt to understand the study.

Conclusion seems to be more that companies that pollute pay higher wages than a study of direct household pollution.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I’d like to see it divided up even more on the top 10%.

Well the boy howdy do I have good news for you! If you read the article linked (and even better, the open access Journal article linked) you may find some cool nuggets like:

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

And

Then there were "super-emitters" with extremely high overall greenhouse gas emissions, corresponding to about the top 0.1% of households. About 15 days of emissions from a super-emitter was equal to a lifetime of emissions for someone in the poorest 10% in America.

Clicking into the journal article you may even find cool figures like this one, showing breakdown of emissions by category for each income group:

https://journals.plos.org/climate/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000190.g001

Or this table showing the share of national emissions for each percentile:

https://journals.plos.org/climate/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000190.t001

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Every time I read about the ultra rich the exceed my negative expectations. 15 days = 1 lifetime is waaay more than I thought. My guess would have been like 1 year to build up that much. Wtf are they doing

[–] flames5123 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yea I read that. I said divided even more. I should have been clearer on that. I’d really like a top 7.5, top 5, top 2.5 and then top 1 and 0.1. There’s a HUGE gap between top 10 and top 1. Like 3-4 times more income.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'd love for a statistician (or someone that remembers way more about statistics than I do) to give us an equation which allows us to more easily assign blame. My intuition tells me that the yacht-owning class would be a significant portion.

[–] flames5123 2 points 1 year ago

Yep. I’m barely in the top 10%, but I’m in a city and take transit and ride my bike, my wife uses the electric car to drive 5 mins uphill and gains about 60% back coming downhill. We eat local and do recycling and compost. The top 5% living in Texas or in suburbs driving trucks and SUVs are doing way more than me. I don’t think I’m an outlier in modern cities.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Kind of confusing study. I thought it would outline how specifically those 10% are emitting that many gasses, so doing breakdowns like how much it costs to operate their homes and breakdowns of their methods of travel.

But, it is taking into consideration stuff like company they work for so like someone who lives without electricity in a tent and bikes but gets a high wages from a petroleum factory while investing most of their money as an engineer would be considered to be a higher gas emitter than someone who works in insurance while driving suvs and pickup trucks and living in a huge house.

It's pretty abstract. Makes for a catchy headline, but not the direct picture I was hoping for when it comes to a household because it's more an industry revenue analysis.

For those that want to skip straight to the study here it is

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

something something eating the rich shold be considered vegan

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

The people will die of thirst and starvation, to ensure the perpetual growth and gluttony privilege of the rich is protected at all costs.

[–] signor 7 points 1 year ago

So we can start to save the earth by eating the rich right?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I kind of dislike studies like this. Because something like 70% of global greenhouse emissions is because around 20000 specific people that have names and addresses are choosing wealth over sustainability, these are people who literally have the power to stop what they are doing tomorrow and make a larger difference then 100 million voters. When you make things abstract and use terms like 1% you are hiding the real villains of the story.

Also market-based solutions like this:

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

Will never provide a solution to climate change, because market based solutions are designed to help the rich, not save the planet.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

No shit. Lol. I know it’s not me just running a computer & charging my phone.

[–] tomi000 5 points 1 year ago

Thats actually waaaay lower than I would have guessed. Still not acceptable though.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Compost the rich.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Cool, switch to solar.

[–] LilDestructiveSheep 2 points 1 year ago

Saw a documentary about that. They don't give a dime.

load more comments
view more: next ›