Personal carbon footprint of the rich is vastly underestimated(cam.ac.uk)
cam.ac.uk
Personal carbon footprint of the rich is vastly underestimated
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/personal-carbon-footprint-of-the-rich-is-vastly-underestimated-by-rich-and-poor-alike-study-finds
79 comments
Also a fan of revenue neutral carbon pricing that uses a standard dividend. Pricing externalities does seem like the only realistic way to solve tragedy of the commons issues like climate change. The weight of regulating individual actions would be impossibly complex.
I also think pricing alone isn't sufficient since there are many poor people who can't really make different choices about their consumption even if they want to. Without choice carbon pricing loses effectiveness, since there isn't any way to optimize your costs.
The edge case I think about a lot is a poor urban/suburban renter without access to functional public transit. Since they rent they can't take steps to improve the efficiency of their dwelling. They can't rely on transit to get to work due to poor service reliability. Sprawling car-centric development means cycling is dangerous and far, so they must maintain a private vehicle, which is likely to be old and inefficient in order to be affordable. A dividend is unlikely to be sufficient to fundamentally change any of these conditions since this person is likely to be roughly revenue-neutral.
I also think pricing alone isn't sufficient since there are many poor people who can't really make different choices about their consumption even if they want to. Without choice carbon pricing loses effectiveness, since there isn't any way to optimize your costs.
The edge case I think about a lot is a poor urban/suburban renter without access to functional public transit. Since they rent they can't take steps to improve the efficiency of their dwelling. They can't rely on transit to get to work due to poor service reliability. Sprawling car-centric development means cycling is dangerous and far, so they must maintain a private vehicle, which is likely to be old and inefficient in order to be affordable. A dividend is unlikely to be sufficient to fundamentally change any of these conditions since this person is likely to be roughly revenue-neutral.
I'm largely in agreement with you but I think the payout from the carbon tax should be higher on the poor side of the spectrum and much lower on the wealthy side. Alternatively, one could use the carbon tax to feed a negative income tax.
The net effect of a carbon tax already very negative for the wealthy and positive for the working class. Perhaps you underestimate the carbon footprint of different folks -- precisely the subject of article under discussion.
Imports aren’t so challenging: You’re effectively imposing a new tariff, and tariff calculation is already a complex business of defining categories and setting rates.
It’s a drop in the proverbial bucket for some Federal agency to annually assess the rough carbon intensity of a dollar’s worth of exports from 150 nations across a few dozen industries.
It’s a drop in the proverbial bucket for some Federal agency to annually assess the rough carbon intensity of a dollar’s worth of exports from 150 nations across a few dozen industries.
> carbon dividend: tax carbon emissions at the source and distribute the revenue equally among residents
I've always thought this would be the best way to get political support from a majority. There's enough data out there that the gov't ought to be able to (a) come up with some very firm predictions of who would come out ahead and (b) whip up a website for people to profile their own case.
I've always thought this would be the best way to get political support from a majority. There's enough data out there that the gov't ought to be able to (a) come up with some very firm predictions of who would come out ahead and (b) whip up a website for people to profile their own case.
> The main challenge is finding a reasonable way of dealing with imports.
Which requires revisiting the postal treaties that lead to shipping from China costing less than across town.
Which requires revisiting the postal treaties that lead to shipping from China costing less than across town.
I agree. Imagine if we had tried to tackle ozone depletion by saying "thou shall not buy CFCs nor use products or services which make use of CFC" and had created a "CFC personal footprint" and set about finding those individuals whose choices seemed to create the worst measure of CFC footprint.
It's just madness! Instead we regulated them and the problem resolved.
It's just madness! Instead we regulated them and the problem resolved.
The reason CFC regulation succeeded is just because they turned out to be easy to replace. This is not the case for hydrocarbons and concrete
> For example, recycling, shutting off the lights when leaving a room and avoiding plastic packaging are lower-impact behaviours that are overestimated in terms of how much they can reduce one’s carbon footprint.
Turning off the lights is almost a don't-give-a-damn item in the age of the LED, when you have 6W doing the job of 60W.
Recycling is a scam that was originally introduced by the plastics industry in order to overcome people's objections against discardable plastic objects. Most of it ends up in landfills.
To really cut your carbon footprint, don't take flights.
There is a term jet set for the rich, referring to their means to fly frequently all over the place, internationally and domestically. That spews carbon like anything.
Turning off the lights is almost a don't-give-a-damn item in the age of the LED, when you have 6W doing the job of 60W.
Recycling is a scam that was originally introduced by the plastics industry in order to overcome people's objections against discardable plastic objects. Most of it ends up in landfills.
To really cut your carbon footprint, don't take flights.
There is a term jet set for the rich, referring to their means to fly frequently all over the place, internationally and domestically. That spews carbon like anything.
Recycling plastic is a scam. Most other recycling programs aren't.
Doesn't it follow that if we all get rich, then things will be much worse?
But let's do another thought experiment: take everything from everybody. Clothing, housing, cars, infrastructure. If you also take away agriculture, the current population's numbers will starve, but not before foraging anything left. If you don't, then the environmental footprint of a naked and destitute human population in its current numbers will still be damning to the planet.
If you don't think any of this is accurate, take a look at the Middle East. Most of what once was the cradle of civilization because of its fertility is now cracked desert. And that happened way before the modern age. You can also go a little back in time, to the beginning of the Holocene, and see how humans had already managed to cause a great extinction.
Maybe there is a "middle way" where we enforce an acceptable level of wealth and well-being for each human being, and keep our demography in check, and we escape runaway greenhouse effect. It will be a regime that many today would find disagreeable (myself included), but some sacrifices must be made. And/or we start talking seriously about those rockets to move out of the planet....
But let's do another thought experiment: take everything from everybody. Clothing, housing, cars, infrastructure. If you also take away agriculture, the current population's numbers will starve, but not before foraging anything left. If you don't, then the environmental footprint of a naked and destitute human population in its current numbers will still be damning to the planet.
If you don't think any of this is accurate, take a look at the Middle East. Most of what once was the cradle of civilization because of its fertility is now cracked desert. And that happened way before the modern age. You can also go a little back in time, to the beginning of the Holocene, and see how humans had already managed to cause a great extinction.
Maybe there is a "middle way" where we enforce an acceptable level of wealth and well-being for each human being, and keep our demography in check, and we escape runaway greenhouse effect. It will be a regime that many today would find disagreeable (myself included), but some sacrifices must be made. And/or we start talking seriously about those rockets to move out of the planet....
Which great extinction did humans cause in the past?
There is some hair-splitting around the term, but here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
ahh okay, I thought we were still in progress on that one. We haven’t really stopped since we started, so it’s kind of kind one big miserable period.
I don't think I disagree with anything in the article. However, I'd weary that many people extrapolate the conclusions to mean that the average person shouldn't do anything differently. For many many people in the world (not all yet), their ROI is positive for most household and transportation electrification projects. That is, they not only help the environment by switching to electric appliances and cars rather than fossil fuel, but they also can help out their own pocketbooks. New EVs are on the more expensive side of this, but electric bikes and other forms of electric transportation is much more affordable up front.
>electric bikes
Its not safe to cycle for practical purposes in my city.
The city make gestures like painting a few road shoulders green and nature trails for exercise. This does not get me to work, daycare, the dentist, etc.
Generally in America, bikes are more of a novelty than transportation.
Its not safe to cycle for practical purposes in my city.
The city make gestures like painting a few road shoulders green and nature trails for exercise. This does not get me to work, daycare, the dentist, etc.
Generally in America, bikes are more of a novelty than transportation.
Ok. My comment wasn't even promoting e-bikes over electric cars. I have an electric car. I use it daily and use it to get me around more than my ebike. But if someone lives somewhere in the world off of a much tinier budget and they can use something like a bike/motorcycle/cart that is electric powered over a much dirtier gas engine, then that's something they should consider.
If you want to set transit folks' hair on fire, show how many E-bikes the government could buy for the cost of a transit project. Then, apply that number to the population that would be served by by that transit system.
I see what you mean, but also:
If you want to set e-bikes folks' hair on fire, show how many shoes the government could buy for the cost of an e-bike distribution program. Then, apply that number to the population that would be served by those e-bikes.
If you want to set e-bikes folks' hair on fire, show how many shoes the government could buy for the cost of an e-bike distribution program. Then, apply that number to the population that would be served by those e-bikes.
I’m with you on the collective effect of small efforts, but it’s a difficult ask to motivate when one persons excess personal environmental contamination (say, through private jet ownership) offsets an entire nations efforts of using paper instead of plastic straws, for instance.
It’s like everyone shares the pool, and everyone gets out and goes to the bathroom to defecate. But not this one guy, he “doesn’t have time” to get out and shit, so he just shits over in the corner of the pool.
It’s still better that most people use the bathroom, but it’s pretty demotivating to some people to see that guy celebrated for his achievements while he’s shitting in everyone’s pool. Hopefully his contributions to society are ambitious enough from a humanitarian and humanist perspective to make it worth it to most people.
This perspective is why I try really hard to avoid shitting in the pool, as well as only pursuing goals that I believe can have a genuine and sustainable improvement, no matter how small, on the quality of life of most everyone on the planet-either directly or indirectly.
It’s like everyone shares the pool, and everyone gets out and goes to the bathroom to defecate. But not this one guy, he “doesn’t have time” to get out and shit, so he just shits over in the corner of the pool.
It’s still better that most people use the bathroom, but it’s pretty demotivating to some people to see that guy celebrated for his achievements while he’s shitting in everyone’s pool. Hopefully his contributions to society are ambitious enough from a humanitarian and humanist perspective to make it worth it to most people.
This perspective is why I try really hard to avoid shitting in the pool, as well as only pursuing goals that I believe can have a genuine and sustainable improvement, no matter how small, on the quality of life of most everyone on the planet-either directly or indirectly.
But I'd argue two points here. First, the average American household spends approximately $5k a year on gasoline [0]. That's still quite a lot of gasoline burned up. Add to that another ~$1k of natural gas the average household is burning up every year. I don't really call that small consumption. On a worldwide scale, each of these American households is burning up way more fossil fuels than the bottom 50%+. THEY ARE the rich of the world. But my second point is that switching to an EV and heat pumps (HVAC, dryers, water heaters) and induction (or electric) stoves are actually an improvement over their fossil fuel burning counterparts, either by ROI, function, or most likely, both.
[0] https://www.jdpower.com/cars/shopping-guides/how-much-do-peo....
[0] https://www.jdpower.com/cars/shopping-guides/how-much-do-peo....
Absolutely on heat pumps and EVs. At least in most areas.
Yeah, basically this. No one should be expected to reduce how much they drive their car when there are people out there using personal jets to commute and mega yachts to vacation on
Average people should not be asked to reduce their consumption so that rich people can continue getting away with their excess
Average people should not be asked to reduce their consumption so that rich people can continue getting away with their excess
But I'd argue two points here. First, the average American household spends approximately $5k a year on gasoline [0]. That's still quite a lot of gasoline burned up. Add to that another ~$1k of natural gas the average household is burning up every year. I don't really call that small consumption. On a worldwide scale, each of these American households is burning up way more fossil fuels than the bottom 50%+. THEY ARE the rich of the world. But my second point is that switching to an EV and heat pumps (HVAC, dryers, water heaters) and induction (or electric) stoves are actually an improvement over their fossil fuel burning counterparts, either by ROI, function, or most likely, both.
I'm not suggesting anyone drive less even. Just switch to superior electrified products (and support renewable electricity+batteries as appropriate).
[0] https://www.jdpower.com/cars/shopping-guides/how-much-do-peo....
I'm not suggesting anyone drive less even. Just switch to superior electrified products (and support renewable electricity+batteries as appropriate).
[0] https://www.jdpower.com/cars/shopping-guides/how-much-do-peo....
> Just switch to superior electrified products (and support renewable electricity+batteries as appropriate)
"Just switch" as if that's an easy or affordable thing to do
I have to heat my house somehow, I'm not going to go cold during the winter to reduce how much carbon I use, and I can't afford to replace my gas heating with electric, replace all of the insulation and windows in my house to make heating more efficient, etc
If using less gas is a choice between "go broke" or "go cold", my choice is to use gas
"Just switch" as if that's an easy or affordable thing to do
I have to heat my house somehow, I'm not going to go cold during the winter to reduce how much carbon I use, and I can't afford to replace my gas heating with electric, replace all of the insulation and windows in my house to make heating more efficient, etc
If using less gas is a choice between "go broke" or "go cold", my choice is to use gas
At some point you'll need to replace your gas furnace anyway. Then yes, "just switch".
And if you're in the US and you can't afford much (which it sounds like you're implying), use the IRA funds!
And if you're in the US and you can't afford much (which it sounds like you're implying), use the IRA funds!
Aren't "personal carbon footprints", whether of the rich or not, insignificant compared to industrial carbon emissions?
I can find 3.7 * 10^13 kg CO2 for energy yearly worldwide.
On the other hand, there are around 25 * 10^3 private jets each emitting 4.9 CO2 kg/mile, with mach 1 being 767 miles/hour, which gives 4.9 * 25 * 10^3 * 767 * 24 * 365 kg CO2 = 8.23 * 10^11 per year assuming the jets are running all the time at the speed of sound.
8.23 * 10^11 / (3.7 * 10^13) = 2.2%, with assumptions that make this a significant overestimate. Internet sources claim 0.9% from civil aviation.
I can find 3.7 * 10^13 kg CO2 for energy yearly worldwide.
On the other hand, there are around 25 * 10^3 private jets each emitting 4.9 CO2 kg/mile, with mach 1 being 767 miles/hour, which gives 4.9 * 25 * 10^3 * 767 * 24 * 365 kg CO2 = 8.23 * 10^11 per year assuming the jets are running all the time at the speed of sound.
8.23 * 10^11 / (3.7 * 10^13) = 2.2%, with assumptions that make this a significant overestimate. Internet sources claim 0.9% from civil aviation.
This definitely gets said a lot, but I am not sure it's a meaningful thing to say. After all, something like 20% of emissions come from agriculture. If you count that as industrial emissions (surely it is an industry) then it must dwarf personal footprints. But the food you eat surely belongs to your personal footprint as well?
I'm not confident that when people make this comparison, they account for the double counting. After all, most (?) industry does something that's eventually consumed by someone. What proportion of responsibility goes to the industry versus the consumer? Obviously not a well-posed problem.
I'm not confident that when people make this comparison, they account for the double counting. After all, most (?) industry does something that's eventually consumed by someone. What proportion of responsibility goes to the industry versus the consumer? Obviously not a well-posed problem.
The rich don't eat 20x food though.
I wonder how much food they purchase and waste though..
For example, it's not hard for me to imagine someone wealthy having strawberries delivered to every house they own, week after week, just in case they decide to visit that house and want strawberries
Maybe that's not very common, but we are talking about a class of people that will take a private jet to another city to get breakfast at their favorite restaurant there
For example, it's not hard for me to imagine someone wealthy having strawberries delivered to every house they own, week after week, just in case they decide to visit that house and want strawberries
Maybe that's not very common, but we are talking about a class of people that will take a private jet to another city to get breakfast at their favorite restaurant there
They eat a lot more meat though. And that's much more CO_2 intensive than grains and legumes.
Yes, that is my point (although the other reply is correct - the diets of the rich are generally more carbon-intensive).
[deleted]
Idea of care about carbon footprint by those who survive from day to day is ridiculous. All social engineering idas are irrelevant, if you have difficulties to give a food to your children.
Let get poor rich, then we can speak about care of environment.
Let get poor rich, then we can speak about care of environment.
OK I can't even (easily) find the numbers.
What is an average person's carbon footprint? what is a rich person's carbon footprint? 10x, 100x?
Best I see right now is https://www.visualcapitalist.com/co2-emissions-by-income/ which is from 2019 and doesn't say exactly who's covered - I assume it's a global mix?
Income Group Average income (USD) Share of CO₂ Emissions Top 1% $310K 15% Next 9% $90K 34% Middle 40% $16K 43% Bottom 50% $2K 8%
So the top 10% by income account for 49% of the carbon emissions, and the next 40% for 43%, and the lowest 50% for 8%.
So that would mean if I got this right: Top 1%: 94x / year / person Next 9%: 24x / year / person Middle 40%: 7x / year / person Bottom 50%: 1X/year/person
So the top 1% person uses about 14x more carbon than a middle 40% person. Over one order of magnitude. I actually expected it to be far worse, what with the yachts and private planes.
Any better sources/numbers for this?
What is an average person's carbon footprint? what is a rich person's carbon footprint? 10x, 100x?
Best I see right now is https://www.visualcapitalist.com/co2-emissions-by-income/ which is from 2019 and doesn't say exactly who's covered - I assume it's a global mix?
Income Group Average income (USD) Share of CO₂ Emissions Top 1% $310K 15% Next 9% $90K 34% Middle 40% $16K 43% Bottom 50% $2K 8%
So the top 10% by income account for 49% of the carbon emissions, and the next 40% for 43%, and the lowest 50% for 8%.
So that would mean if I got this right: Top 1%: 94x / year / person Next 9%: 24x / year / person Middle 40%: 7x / year / person Bottom 50%: 1X/year/person
So the top 1% person uses about 14x more carbon than a middle 40% person. Over one order of magnitude. I actually expected it to be far worse, what with the yachts and private planes.
Any better sources/numbers for this?
I'm not so sure one can say the ability increase your footprint due to wealth directly equates to a larger footprint... A bit of an anecdotal counterpoint: the few wealthy folks I know are almost hermits and typically relax at home while the rest of us have daily commutes and such. I've never known them to fly anywhere and basically "have everything they need" where they are. I'd be willing to bet their carbon footprint is much much lower than most.
This seems to be a study about people's misperception of carbon footprint of people in different income cohorts.
I scanned the paper and didn't find how it controls for the participants' misperception of income inequality to begin with. For example if the survey participants underestimated income inequality between cohorts, that might be the reason they underestimate carbon inequality - they just imagined the top 1% as more similar to other people!
I scanned the paper and didn't find how it controls for the participants' misperception of income inequality to begin with. For example if the survey participants underestimated income inequality between cohorts, that might be the reason they underestimate carbon inequality - they just imagined the top 1% as more similar to other people!
Any time you spend thinking or breath you spend talking about someone else’s carbon footprint is a total fool’s errand.
Nobody will ever change their carbon footprint because of what someone else tells them. There will always be someone worse than them who they can point to and say, “Well I’m not as bad as them so they should change.
If people cared at all about this, they’d change their own behavior. And it’s fine to not care about this at all. And it’s also clear that people don’t care about this at all or they would change rather than hope that someone else will change.
Politicians are incentivized to get elected so don’t expect them to do anything that would risk that — like making laws that inconvenience the people who vote for them or give them money.
Whether I eat meat (I don’t) or Taylor Swift flies in a private jet (she does) doesn’t matter at all when it comes to the environment. That ship has sailed and the effects of climate change are pretty much baked in at this point. The hope is that I’m wealthy enough (in a global context) to avoid any real inconvenience to myself before I die.
Nobody will ever change their carbon footprint because of what someone else tells them. There will always be someone worse than them who they can point to and say, “Well I’m not as bad as them so they should change.
If people cared at all about this, they’d change their own behavior. And it’s fine to not care about this at all. And it’s also clear that people don’t care about this at all or they would change rather than hope that someone else will change.
Politicians are incentivized to get elected so don’t expect them to do anything that would risk that — like making laws that inconvenience the people who vote for them or give them money.
Whether I eat meat (I don’t) or Taylor Swift flies in a private jet (she does) doesn’t matter at all when it comes to the environment. That ship has sailed and the effects of climate change are pretty much baked in at this point. The hope is that I’m wealthy enough (in a global context) to avoid any real inconvenience to myself before I die.
Woah, I expected you to get to the point that concerted effort, legislation and better technology is the only thing which will lower carbon dioxide outputs. Instead I got fatalism. :-P
You can check CO2 level meter in the atmosphere over past half a century, to see that "concerted effort, legislation and better technology" not only did jack shit to the actual CO2 levels, but the rate of increase is also increasing last years (accelerating).
Until governments start collectively implementing policies which actually contain or reduce climate change, instead of greenwashing and shifting blame overseas, fatalism is probably the only valid approach, despite how dumb it is. And don't get this old song about personal improvements etc. In no universe individual humans can invent and scale DAC, or deploy giant sunshields, or spread sulphur in the troposphere over thousands of flights. And anything else is pointless really.
Until governments start collectively implementing policies which actually contain or reduce climate change, instead of greenwashing and shifting blame overseas, fatalism is probably the only valid approach, despite how dumb it is. And don't get this old song about personal improvements etc. In no universe individual humans can invent and scale DAC, or deploy giant sunshields, or spread sulphur in the troposphere over thousands of flights. And anything else is pointless really.
I think people only started to really believe in global warming the last 10 years. So I don't think there has been much effort so far. (Except as you point out, effort in greenwashing.)
It’s not fatalism. It’s the reality we live in.
If you think there’s going to be some great concerted effort and legislation and magic new technology coming, get real.
If you want to “fix” climate change then a lot of people are going to need to decide to make massive shifts in how they live. And that just isn’t going to happen by choice.
But do keep dreaming about that technology that lets us keep living as wastefully as we do.
If you think there’s going to be some great concerted effort and legislation and magic new technology coming, get real.
If you want to “fix” climate change then a lot of people are going to need to decide to make massive shifts in how they live. And that just isn’t going to happen by choice.
But do keep dreaming about that technology that lets us keep living as wastefully as we do.
He is not entirely wrong.
The last to starve will be the first to suffocate.
The last to starve will be the first to suffocate.
No of course not, but with enough people choosing the fatalistic approach, they will be right by fiat.
(Almost the same can be said for all more positive approaches, except we can't know for sure they will work, we can only hope. This goes for everything in life. Only Death and allegedly Taxes are certain.)
(Almost the same can be said for all more positive approaches, except we can't know for sure they will work, we can only hope. This goes for everything in life. Only Death and allegedly Taxes are certain.)
We are making some progress towards a greener future with the plummeting birth rates. I wonder if that contains some sort of feedback loop.
Otherwise we are not making any real progress. We certainly pretend that we are though.
Otherwise we are not making any real progress. We certainly pretend that we are though.
We have slowed down the acceleration of Co2, so that's proof we can do something. Maybe also dirt cheap solar will at some point make a dent. A huge problem is fertilizer made from fossil fuels.
> the effects of climate change are pretty much baked in at this point
It can has already gotten bad so let's just give up and let it get worse and worse? Climate change isn't a binary phenomenon. It can always get worse.
It can has already gotten bad so let's just give up and let it get worse and worse? Climate change isn't a binary phenomenon. It can always get worse.
Demonstrably and empirically untrue. We’ve made progress on this issue and we can make more.
We’re talking about carbon emissions.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?t...
You’ll notice that countries trying to reduce emissions are successfully doing so on a per capita basis. Countries which are not trying, aren’t. There you go, GP’s point empirically disproven.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?t...
You’ll notice that countries trying to reduce emissions are successfully doing so on a per capita basis. Countries which are not trying, aren’t. There you go, GP’s point empirically disproven.
Isn’t that per person and aren’t there more people than ever before?
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions
“Global emissions have increased rapidly over the last 50 years and have not yet peaked”
If Denmark is trying but India and China aren’t, does it really matter lol?
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions
“Global emissions have increased rapidly over the last 50 years and have not yet peaked”
If Denmark is trying but India and China aren’t, does it really matter lol?
The US and UK have reduced their annual CO2 emissions in absolute terms as well.
Denmark's emissions move the needle exactly in proportion to Denmark's emissions. They alone won't save the world if India and China aren't reducing emissions, which is why we should be convincing them to reduce emissions, not throwing our hands in the air with totally non-factual claims like:
> Any time you spend thinking or breath you spend talking about someone else’s carbon footprint is a total fool’s errand.
This is demonstrably, unequivocally untrue. Thinking and breath spent talking about someone else's carbon footprint is reducing people's carbon footprints.
I know cynicism and fatalism sounds cool to certain types of people, but it's generally intellectually lazy and in this case it makes you simply wrong.
It's interesting how you're taking this position about how "people" always excuse their own behavior by pointing to larger polluters and therefore we're doomed, but what I see in the data is that plenty of people aren't engaging in that behavior. However, you are, and you're projecting that onto everyone else (despite clear evidence otherwise). You can simply choose not to :)
Denmark's emissions move the needle exactly in proportion to Denmark's emissions. They alone won't save the world if India and China aren't reducing emissions, which is why we should be convincing them to reduce emissions, not throwing our hands in the air with totally non-factual claims like:
> Any time you spend thinking or breath you spend talking about someone else’s carbon footprint is a total fool’s errand.
This is demonstrably, unequivocally untrue. Thinking and breath spent talking about someone else's carbon footprint is reducing people's carbon footprints.
I know cynicism and fatalism sounds cool to certain types of people, but it's generally intellectually lazy and in this case it makes you simply wrong.
It's interesting how you're taking this position about how "people" always excuse their own behavior by pointing to larger polluters and therefore we're doomed, but what I see in the data is that plenty of people aren't engaging in that behavior. However, you are, and you're projecting that onto everyone else (despite clear evidence otherwise). You can simply choose not to :)
Neat!
People are allowed to be outraged that Taylor Swift generates a larger carbon footprint than the average person... This is a pretty solipsistic point of view that acknowledges that we do indeed live in a society. Doesn't mean we can't try to do better in the face of impending doom.
> People are allowed to be outraged that Taylor Swift generates a larger carbon footprint than the average person
I mean, sure?
Same as it’s OK for Taylor Swift to be outraged that Jeff Bezos generates a larger carbon footprint than her. Or same as it’s OK for me to be outraged that you generate a larger carbon footprint than me.
What good does the outrage do besides help each person ignore the fact that theyre the problem?
I mean, sure?
Same as it’s OK for Taylor Swift to be outraged that Jeff Bezos generates a larger carbon footprint than her. Or same as it’s OK for me to be outraged that you generate a larger carbon footprint than me.
What good does the outrage do besides help each person ignore the fact that theyre the problem?
> The hope is that I’m wealthy enough (in a global context) to avoid any real inconvenience to myself before I die.
You might get away with that if you're old enough to die before it gets bad. But if/when we get to serious effects from climate change then wealth isn't going help much because people will very quickly stop respecting the laws that enforce it.
You might get away with that if you're old enough to die before it gets bad. But if/when we get to serious effects from climate change then wealth isn't going help much because people will very quickly stop respecting the laws that enforce it.
> because people will very quickly stop respecting the laws that enforce it.
Not if they die first. It all depends on how quickly things get bad.
Not if they die first. It all depends on how quickly things get bad.
> Well I’m not as bad as them so they should change.
It's rather "I do meaningful actions (i.e. I don't take plane) so I'd be happy if they would do it too".
It's rather "I do meaningful actions (i.e. I don't take plane) so I'd be happy if they would do it too".
This has been obvious for quite some time, and is a key criticism of the "climate deniers".
The poor and middle class pay and suffer from climate change initiatives while the rich and powerful fly around on private jets to climate conferences. Clearly there is something going on here.
The poor and middle class pay and suffer from climate change initiatives while the rich and powerful fly around on private jets to climate conferences. Clearly there is something going on here.
Can you explain the chain of reasoning from "rich people shouldn't be flying on private jets to climate conferences" to climate denialism?
As a refresher, climate denialism "is rejection of the idea that changes in the Earth's climate or weather patterns are caused by human activity."
As a refresher, climate denialism "is rejection of the idea that changes in the Earth's climate or weather patterns are caused by human activity."
Wasteful use of private jets and air travel for climate change events (teleconferencing exists), if CO2 was an existential threat would they not cease ultra pollution travel for a few?
If overeating really made people obese, wouldn’t they just not overeat?
If drinking too much really gives people hangovers, wouldn’t they just never drink too much?
If going into debt made it harder for people to afford the things they want, wouldn’t they just never spend more than they have?
People’s hypocrisy and witting or unwitting opting into bad outcomes has quite literally zero bearing on whether the bad outcomes exist or not.
If drinking too much really gives people hangovers, wouldn’t they just never drink too much?
If going into debt made it harder for people to afford the things they want, wouldn’t they just never spend more than they have?
People’s hypocrisy and witting or unwitting opting into bad outcomes has quite literally zero bearing on whether the bad outcomes exist or not.
Is grossly underestimated by whom? Oh, by just random people off the street? I am not sure why we are surprised that people with no expertise on the topic have absolutely no idea what affects their carbon footprint.
But surely that's the point of this study? i.e. to help communicate this fact to the masses? You know, with evidence instead of hunches and stuff?
To communicate what fact? That some random people on the street can't guesstimate carbon footprints very well?
To communicate the fact to people that they and others likely misunderstand their own carbon foot print.
This is the kind of thing that makes it on to the news because it connects something abstract with everyday people.
This is the kind of thing that makes it on to the news because it connects something abstract with everyday people.
Apparently that is not what the study concluded, they only found that everyone (rich and poor) underestimated the carbon footprint of the rich. Anyway, I still can't find this surprising. It's just obviously a complicated question. How much energy does it take to heat a home in a year? Or to transport a mango from Bolivia to Germany? Or to fly 1000km vs 10000km? This is what we have experts for, is it not?
From TFA:
> The vast majority of participants across the four countries overestimated the average personal carbon footprint of the poorest 50% and underestimated those of the richest 10% and 1%.
Edit: are you an LLM?
> The vast majority of participants across the four countries overestimated the average personal carbon footprint of the poorest 50% and underestimated those of the richest 10% and 1%.
Edit: are you an LLM?
Because “carbon” in these conversations is a proxy to “stuff” as an important input to everything. Of course, the rich have more stuff. Interestingly, focusing on carbon allows for applying a moral dimension to having more stuff: it’s not only wrong to have more because I have less and don’t like that, but because you are hurting is all.
No not really. Carbon emissions refers to carbon emissions which are put into our shared air and affect our shared environment.
Disappointing to see the Cambridge Zero Fellow repeating the BS about plastic straws ban being about carbon.
Was it really so hard to find an ineffective policy for reducing carbon that he had to name check one aimed at a different environmental goal?
Was it really so hard to find an ineffective policy for reducing carbon that he had to name check one aimed at a different environmental goal?
[deleted]
fsndz(1)
However, participants from the top 10% were more likely to support certain climate policies, such as increasing the price of electricity during peak periods, taxing red meat consumption or subsidising carbon dioxide removal technologies such as carbon capture and storage.
I bet they are. Regulation impacts everybody equally. So if you have a poor person who is responsible for 1% of the emissions compared to a rich person increased regulation applies to each of them in the same way, for example paying more for a hamburger. That is not disruptive or consequential for the rich person either financially or in their emission footprint and they get to feel good about making the world cleaner.
I bet they are. Regulation impacts everybody equally. So if you have a poor person who is responsible for 1% of the emissions compared to a rich person increased regulation applies to each of them in the same way, for example paying more for a hamburger. That is not disruptive or consequential for the rich person either financially or in their emission footprint and they get to feel good about making the world cleaner.
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.
Anatole France
Anatole France
The main challenge is finding a reasonable way of dealing with imports.