• blazera@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    So, the study theyre citing is pretty flawed. It starts with an assumption that emissions strictly correlate with income, it doesnt actually break down or analyze emissions sources. It just takes the total emissions of a country and divides that up by income. Its economic analysis. But that’s not how emissions work. A million dollar car isnt gonna emit 100 times more than a 10k car. The cows for their wagyu steaks arent producing more methane than cows ending up at Mcdonalds.

    The wealthy absolutely emit more through flights and boats. Someone with a private jet is likely emitting hundreds of times more emissions than a regular person. But theres not that many private jets. Ban all private jets, but it wont even register on global emissions totals.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s a ton of academic research showing the correlation between income and emissions.

      There are also a ton of actions which are necessary to get to zero emissions but not sufficient. Banning private jets is one.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Banning private jets is so far down the long-tail of emissions-lowering strategies that it’s barely even worth considering. Heck, it might even be bad to consider it because doing so might serve to distract from the things we actually need to do.

        The problem isn’t just billionaire-level income correlated with billionaire-level emissions; the problem is American middle-class-level income correlated with American middle-class-level emissions, too! We – typical, normal Americans – are the global rich people the article’s talking about. The “big barrier to stabilizing the climate” isn’t the robber-baron who doesn’t want to give up his private jet; it’s the suburban soccer mom who doesn’t want to trade her minivan crossover SUV for a cargo bike.

        • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s both, and having billionaires cut their incredibly high emissions makes it politically possible to get the rest of the population on board

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yeah, but that assumes you can succeed in forcing the billionaires to cut their incredibly high emissions. I’m not sure we can afford the time spent picking that fight.

        • PaupersSerenade@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Doesn’t want to is not the same as doesn’t have the proper infrastructure to support a no car life style. You’ve been pretty active in the comments saying that it really isn’t the 1% (or the companies owned by said %). Everyone can do better, in every conceivable facet of life, but it doesn’t seem productive to me to belittle a family trying to live the life they’ve been taught to lead.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            If your attitude is that explaining that change is necessary is “belittling,” you’re a perfect example of the “big barrier” the article is talking about. In particular…

            doesn’t have the proper infrastructure to support a no car life style

            …what have you, personally, been doing to change that? I, for one, am active in my local community organizations trying to get bike infrastructure built, parking minimums reduced, and single-family zones changed to allow higher density.

            We don’t have the luxury of sitting around being offended when called out on our inaction anymore.

            • PaupersSerenade@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sorry, I just don’t agree that the private jets should stay. I’m glad you’re part of that 10% you’ve been bragging about so hard, and feel free to do what you can as I will. But I’m not, and I need to make enough money to pay rent and eat.

              • grue@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Sorry, I just don’t agree that the private jets should stay.

                I didn’t say they should! What I said is that we’ve got way more important things to worry about, and getting hung up on minutiae like that could be counterproductive.

                I’m glad you’re part of that 10% you’ve been bragging about so hard

                You think that’s bragging?! You’ve missed the point so hard I’m not even sure how to respond to that.

                My income isn’t high and never has been (my household has rarely even hit the US median). My wealth is only relatively high for my age because I’m extremely frugal. And that’s also not a brag – that’s just me giving the context to explain that when I say even I’m part of the problem, I mean damn near EVERY-FUCKING-BODY in America is part of the problem! I don’t care how poor you think you are; on a global scale you’re dead wrong.

                • mriormro@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The focus should be on industry, fabrication, production, and energy generation. That’s the largest impact you can have.

                  Regulating people’s lives, especially people who already feel pressed upon given their contextual poverty/inequality is not how anything is going to happen. In fact, you’ll probably be exactly where we are now: mostly no one giving a shit or doing anything about it.

                  • grue@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The focus should be on ending the suburban American car-centric lifestyle. That’s what’s fucking up the planet, whether you want to admit it or not.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, the study’s methodology is fine. Although you’re correct to point out that the million-dollar car doesn’t pollute much more than the $10K car and the wagyu cow doesn’t fart more than the McDonald’s-destined cow, what you don’t realize is that it really is even the $10K car and the McDonalds cow that are the problem! We’re not just talking about billionaires here; we’re talking about the global 10%, which starts at surprisingly low income or net worth and includes most “middle-class” Americans!

      You are part of the problem. I am part of the problem. It’s not just Bezos and shit who need to change; it’s us.

    • MrMakabar@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Mostly it is bigger houses, driving bigger cars, flying more to vacations and well buying more in general. We are talking about thte top 10% globally here. They are not crazy billionaires and most do not own private jets or boats.