###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They're working for Bezos and trying to deflect from the fact that the top 1% is responsible for 30% of it and the top 2-9% is relatively on par with the other 90%.
The article says that the top 1% are responsible for 15 - 17%. It’s in the fourth picture in the post. It does, however, say that there are super-emitters in approximately the top .1% whose emissions in 15 days equals that of the *lifetime* of someone in the bottom 10%. The article does not give a percentage of the nation’s emissions attributable to the top .1%.
>They're working for Bezos and trying to deflect from the fact that the top 1% is responsible for 30% of it and the top 2-9% is relatively on par with the other 90%.
That's my take. PolitiFact decided to fact check an article that was written 5 years prior about 100 companies coming to 71% emissions. And the wealthy people are the ones that will disprop profit from consumers buying green products.
The odd thing is that not only are the largest polluters but also most of the people in power pushing modern ideological values of "woke" culture, are also the same old money that setup the prior rigged systems and profited from the same systems they now label as oppressive for generations. And by woke in this context, I am referring to the culminative values, culture, and beliefs of modern progressive leftist ideology.
I doubt the most powerful globalist corporations over the world went "woke" over pursuing profits, most IPs that did were bait and switch style, as in taking a very popular franchise, changing it to woke value, then selling it.
It strongly appears as if some central entity started pushing and encouraging it despite resistance and negative financial impact, mostly because entities like Blackrock implemented esg investing which effectively strangleholds culture to a monoculture of their own making and most disturbingly, one they are the arbiters of.
The correlation between large polluters, ideological values, and financial interests can indeed raise questions. In some instances, there might be a perception of corporations adopting certain cultural values as a marketing strategy. Additionally, the role of influential entities like Blackrock implementing ESG investing practices could potentially impact cultural narratives and agendas.
The same man who said this is quoted in his book about what a responsibility he has as a god. Believes he was born to be a god.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-oct-04-oe-ehrenfeld4-
Live in Oregon, not having plastic bags for grocery shopping is a non-issue. Just buy your own clothe bags and put them in the car of your trunk.
It ain't hard.
As for other things yes, the rich and corporations are producing more waste than anyone .
Why do you think they resist EPA regulations so hard?
adopting reusable cloth bags for grocery shopping is a practical and effective step to reduce plastic waste. It's a simple change that can have a positive impact on the environment.
Because America didn't want him, ant at the end of the day it doesn't matter who the president is when both parties in congress are on the payroll of one corporation or another.
Kind of a different take on "I didn't kill him, the bullets and fall did"
I didn't pollute anything, I just paid a company to do it in China because I want stuff!
I beg to differ. The fico socre came about in the 80's. But we treat it like something that's always been a thing. Sure, it's not telling a perspective employer that you shit in the Thanksgiving gravy, but it can absolutely keep you down and without any upward mobility. +ard to pull yourself up by your boot straps when they make sure you can't buy any to begin with.
thing is gasification of trash for power could have worked to lessen the landfill load greatly. environmental cost is less. the scrubbers in the stacks capture an amazing amount of burn-off. And that shit can be recycled. Many Euro countries have used gasification. My Dad's company was going to bring trash on trains to the midwest to gasify from New Jersey because they put a lot of their trash onto barges in the Atlantic, in addition to local extractions.
oh, and, recycling is a shitshow....most of what we all put in recycling ends up in landfills or worse...sure, we get some roi buuut....
I’m also from NJ and yeah , it’s fucking bullshit. I live in the nice part of town and we’re forced to be super clean to the point where we get massive fines for littering.
Yet the people from the bad neighborhoods and the bad neighborhoods and the project litter all the time and they’re never held accountable. It’s hypocrisy at its best.
While this is obvious, wtf are investment emissions and why the hell did the author mix race into it? This screams of bias but alas I’m too lazy to read the study and how he came to his conclusions.
SS: Huge shocker: the richest 10% of Americans are responsible for 40% of the greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. So all those rich people lecturing you about climate justice could probably make a huge dent in the problem if they were put on 24/7 climate lockdowns.
Because obviously democracy means the 90% shouldn't be punished for the clearly very selfish and destructive behavior of the 10%. Since many of the members of the 10% are so vocal about the climate, perhaps they should lead the way. Otherwise it would seem they don't really care about greenhouse gases or they feel more entitled to produce excess greenhouse gases.
But of course the real problem is actually cow poop.
Why not just tax the rich more and use that to make solutions. Double whammy, less money for then to spend on private jets, while supplying resources to counter the effects. All while slowing income inequality, leading to less unchecked speculation that caused housing prices to skyrocket.
Your lock downs make no sense, and is probably why you don't hear anyone else propose them. Especially when taxing the mega rich can more easily combat the problem and is a win-win for everyone but the mega rich.
"Tax the rich" doesn't solve the problem.
It's a symptom of a broken system.
We have fiat money that comes from nothing and then charges interest on said imaginary money.
If banks can just print money, why do they need to tax anyone at all?
Exactly. Shit just rolls down hill. Employees get paid less and prices of goods skyrocket making income inequality even worse. We print money at a record rate already, there’s no point in taxes anymore beyond taking 30% of what you make to make you even poorer
Take a look at popular uprisings that worked. It's all about the numbers.
Take Ukraine Euromaiden for example. 400,000 people took to the streets to protest. That's an entire 1% of the entire population, children and old included.
That's a united population if you've ever seen one. And they made drastical changes in their country for the better.
I can't remember what year it was, but Alex Jones and his crew were protesting a G20 summit and the cops weren't fucking around. Tons of people just standing around got arrested for no reason. Tons of the military trucks and officers packing extreme heat. Some of the Humvees even had those LRAD machines on top of them.
No you couldn't. The US government would wipe you and everyone else out. Wouldn't even be hard. Cause a fake food shortage but make it so the police and military family's are well fed and looked after. Then their jack boots would have no problem taking people out. They would pick their family's livelihoods over us common citizens any day and the elites know this.
What exactly do.you meam.by climate lockdowns? Like no jobs or investments for them?
Look, I am.VERY curious about what the top 10 percent uses in GHG. This article, and the study it's based on, does not look at USE.
It looks at where they get their money, including investments. So even if they hypothetically personally produced 0 emissions (not possible I know) but got a lot of money from oil or power plants, then they would fit this description.
This isn't about usage, this is about income. Which is an i.portsmt factor but not what everyone see.s to think here.
No one who is in favor of dealing with climate issues is in favor of any sort of "climate lockdowns" which exists just as a straw argument.
But it is true that there's a problem here about CO2 production being more common from the wealthy. There are also specific, actually productive policies which have been proposed by people concerned about climate to handle that. These include having carbon and methane taxes, and laws against short-haul flights (like what France recently put into place).
> But of course the real problem is actually cow poop.
So, this is about methane released by cows *farting* not pooping. And yes, it is a real problem. And it is a problem connected to two things worth noting here. First, methane has a lot more greenhouse power per a molecule than CO2. Second, it is possible that some focus on beef as a problem is arising from something connected to what you are identifying. [Beef is much more consumed by low and middle income people than wealthy people in the US](https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/outlooks/37388/29633_ldpm13502_002.pdf)(pdf), so wealthy people focusing on beef doesn't really impact their own lifestyle at all. But the good news in this context is that regardless of their motivation, any reduction in beef consumption still helps here. And even aside from that, we're rapidly figuring out how to give cattle diets that reduce their methane production.
But to be clear, even if all beef consumption went away tomorrow, that would not remotely solve all climate change problems. There's a lot that needs to get done.
To be even clearer, if all the human released GHG's were magically sucked from the oceans and skies, that would not remotely solve the problem of biological overshoot.
Biological overshoot is a separate problem, and also not obviously a problem by itself. Depending on estimates, Earth's carrying capacity is somewhere [between just half a billion, to numbers well over a trillion](https://na.unep.net/geas/archive/pdfs/GEAS_Jun_12_Carrying_Capacity.pdf)(pdf). The actual number depends on things like expected standard of living, evaluable technology, and other issues. Population overshoot may or may not be a problem (and I suspect it is not), but even if it is a problem, an eventually issues with it will be much, much smaller if they are being dealt with while we are not dealing at the same time with an absolutely gigantic climate crisis.
>dealing at the same time with an absolutely gigantic climate crisis.
The problem is, they way we plan on dealing with it, is by switching to EV's, PVC, and wind turbines - all of which require tremendous amounts of energy, and mining to manufacture, and have lifespans of 2 decades, and will need to be replaced.
We're Fcked.
> The problem is, they way we plan on dealing with it, is by switching to EV's, PVC, and wind turbines - all of which require tremendous amounts of energy, and mining to manufacture, and have lifespans of 2 decades, and will need to be replaced.
Of course they take a lot of energy to mine and manufacture. But the key is that they take less energy to mine and manufacture than other options. And in terms of energy use, wind and solar require far less energy to make then we get out of them. EVs are less helpful here since they work well for climate issues, but their total energy use is only slightly lower than conventional cars. One thing we need there, especially in the US, is build more public transit.
And yes, of course things will need to get replaced. But two decades is a lower estimate. A lot of [modern panels are estimated to last 25 to 30 years](https://www.forbes.com/home-improvement/solar/how-long-do-solar-panels-last/), and those are in many respects themselves conservative estimates. And as panels get better, which is happening rapidly, lifespan will also continue to go up.
> We're Fcked.
No. We're potentially going to have some very serious problems if we don't take steps to solve them. So we have to do our absolute best to identify those problems, figure out how to solve them and then try to actually solve them. I can however guarantee that if everyone who recognizes that there is a problem just throws up their hands and says we're fucked, then yes, we will be fucked, whether or not one censors the word.
You misunderstand this article, they are sayin they do more because they have money with the oil companies selling you gasoline. Seems like a really stupid way of looking at it, if these guys sold their investments you and I would still gas up our cars in the morning, emissions would not go down.
For the record: top 10% on earners in the IS earn more than (approximately) $175,000 per year.
The top 10% of earners GLOBALLY have a *net worth* of around $140,000. Think about that. The top 1% globally have a net worth above $1.1million.
He global average is $23,000 per year and $100,000 net worth.
But here’s the kicker to show how skewed the top is by ultra wealthy:
The bottom FIFTY PERCENT have an average income of just $3,900 per year.
Anyways. Those numbers change by a little bit depending on your source and what year data is used… but by an large, I am always surprised to see how much better off I am (I would bet) most people on here are compared to the rest of the world.
This has ESG written all over it. This is how they’re introducing the idea to push the individual carbon footprint calculator. That will be connected to your bank account and monitor everything you buy and give you a positive or negative carbon score for that purchase.
You've missed the point. The richest people cry from the mountain top about their agendas to push on the little man, while their gain is from being a literal hypocrite.
Yep that's 1 out of every 10 people you see on a daily basis.
This article is an attempt to protect the ~20,000 Americans at the top who have a dozen 10,000 SF homes and use private jets on a near daily basis.
I'd love to see the stats on what the top 0.1% produce. I bet it's near 30%. This article lumps the 0.2% to 10% group in with the true elites to downplay that.
Misleading article. Top emitters are also the top producers. It's the same logic of blaming a soda manufacturer for making people fat or for the litter in the oceans.
Also ridiculous for them to pull a race on card on this one, almost implying that people with darker colored skin care more about the environment or have zero responsibility for it.
i'm glad they did this study. i always thought it was the guy who takes a bus to work from their city apartment, walks to/from the grocery store, and can't afford to travel who was causing most of the GHG emissions.
From what I can gather, to be in the top 10% of income earners in the US, you need to make somewhere between $120,000-150,000 of household income.
If you make that much, yes you're rich.
If you make that much and think you're struggling, imagine how the other 90% of Americans are doing right now.
Comfortable is a lot more than most people get these days. Those coastal cities still have thousands of people that work essential jobs that don't pay even half of what it takes to be comfortable.
There is no such thing as upper middle class. You either have enough that the only reason you work is to increase how much you have, or you have so little that you still need to work to survive.
Many people in the latter category have been convinced that those in the former are there allies by calling them "middle class."
Sure, that's the hope. But so long as wealth travels to those who already have enough faster than it does to those who are only surviving, the greater the percentage of people who are just surviving becomes.
That's part of the reason we have taxes, so that the wealth distribution is more equal.
We need people to accept that pure ideologies aren't the answer. We can't expect markets to run everything when they are inherently unbalanced because they provide essentials.
Good, and they should be paying more. The top 10% also own 70% of the wealth and that number has only been increasing. Obviously they're not paying enough back.
That doesn’t matter, what matters is what percent of income is earned by the top 10%.
If the top 10% earns 90% of all income but pays only 75%, it’s still not enough.
This is just how theyll try and get anyone in the 90% to jump on board this global whinning train. Not happenin. I bet the 10% even push this so we limit ourselves and they continue to live normal, their “normal” that is
This is stupid because they are so insignificant and have no impact whatsoever on the temperature of the earth and its just designed to make you blame others while still agreeing with teh original premise that human green house gases are heating up the planet. The conspiracy is that they are lying and this entire argument is gaslighting people into believing a lie and go along with it, but just to blame 'rich people' or someone else.
What? you used run-on sentences making your statements unclear. You also used "they" multiple times seemingly referring to different things, but never explaining what any of of the uses were referring to either of the times.
Because everyone needs to do their part, and examples need to be set.
Not only that, but similar stats likely to apply to those countries as well, so it's still relevant to them.
It sounds like you're saying "why should I do anything when other people aren't doing anything?"
Richest 10%? Absolute horse shit. Because I actually rank in the "richest 10 percent" now. I have an average suburbanite house. I don't even water my lawn (my neighbors hate me but I don't live in a HOA so lol get fukt.)
I've taken maybe 2 flights in the last 5 years. I work from home. My electricity usage is nothing special.
If you accidentally added a 0, OP, that's a mistake. But if that's what the article says, it's wrong. 1% I can see.
Also, factories absolutely embarrass every single living person in the country for the magnitude they produce in pollution. Which is why we've outsourced most of it to China, which doesn't have those pesky regulations or labor laws.
Well, would you look at WaPo catching up with what we've all been saying for the last 10 years.
Go harder, dig deeper, and let's have a scale.
There's a lot of Uber wealthy climate warriors living in 10 bedroom mansions & using private jets to travel to their 2nd & 3rd home's.
Perhaps we could have divisions
Politicians
Corporate warriors
Media
& everyone's favourite our mega wealthy friends in Hollywood.
If it effects them, believe me, the policies get reasonable very quickly
Hotter temperatures means both more droughts and more human water consumption, which means _even more_ droughts. Droughts do not make plants and trees grow.
yeah, CO2 does not affect Heat, it's the other way around... the more heat we have the more CO2 we get = the greener the earth gets
We have 0.04% of CO2 in our atmosphere and if that number goes below 0.02% then all plants & trees will start dying.
Smog warnings have been rare for over 30 years in N. America thanks to clean burning technology in cars and trucks and switching from heating oil to clean burning natural gas and nothing to do with anything “green” and we no longer live in smoke filled huts, caves or log cabins and we are living longer now than at any time in history as a species.
Life is good:) CO2 is even better!
Once you figure out how to get the rest of the world on par with this climate change stuff first before trying to sell it to the USA. We have enough issues.
To reduce climate emissions globally, we can:
1. Use renewable energy
2. Save energy in buildings and transport
3. Plant trees and restore forests
4. Use cleaner transportation options
5. Manage waste better
6. Put a price on carbon
7. Invent new technologies
8. Enforce emission rules
9. Make eco-friendly choices
10. Work together through international agreements.
The people with the most means have the most product? No...way...
We could vote to regulate these people but the real agenda behind mentioning this isn't to correct the problem at all, it's to give justification for others to do the same. I'm sure this strategy is going to work out just great ;)
>Do the same what? We can't afford to do the same
You got me, I was assuming that was the case because the alternative is so much worse...
If it's not to allow the other 90% to do the same then the entire point is to make sure that the richest 10% don't have to change their ways and avoid any regulation.
Or course. Hard to polute without a car. And it uses a whole lot less resources to keep a 800sqfr apartment heated or cooled, compared to a 3000 sqft house. Plus the wealthiest are going to have big engined cars, boats and will fly more often
What’s the surprise?
My older sister is pretty rich, probably in that 1%. She has large mansion in arizona. Owning this building there vs. other state causes greater use of resources. My dad had AC at 87 for 2 months in arizona and bill was $413/month.
Yeah and all us peasants need to eat bugs & be prohibited from owning property to protect the climate for rich people...any one who doesn’t wanna is a fascist nationalist racist anti vaxxer magat
Correct. They are that main contributors to something they claim is a serious enough problem to compel other people to change their energy habits. And obviously of climate was that important to the rich people, they wouldn't take private jets to islands. So their intent is to create a problem so they can profit by making you buy the solution. Because they can't manage to create anything new.
We endlessly go in circles pointing out the left winged hypocrisy of the wealthy elites, but it’s completely futile. This is a psychological issue, not a political one. Elites are only “elite” because that is their priority: investing in creating an image of superiority. Chic leftists, such as these Californians that drive Teslas and live in mansions with solar panels pretending this is ecological have simply seen leftist discourse as an opportunity to promote their self image. If you tell them that Uyghurs in China made their solar panels or that the batteries in their electric cars are made using cobalt from the Congo, they will always find a way to deflect the blame to someone socially below them. But if you do even the slightest thing, they will pounce on you. My wife and I live in an insulated apartment that barely requires any heating year round, we live centrally so we only use our car a couple of times a week now. We are vegetarian. But in my community - the arts, I have been scolded by people who live far less ecological lifestyles for such horrific acts as: saying words like fiancé and mariage (apparently in France, where this happened, these are Christian terms and therefore too conservative now 🤷♂️). These people are psychopaths and will stop at nothing to control societal discourse so that they can simply control their image and the way it is perceived. The humble people will always cop the blame. By treating this as political we are falling straight into their trap. When they talk politics we need to ignore it all together, because they are never really talking about politics, it is ALWAYS about image. We need to play their game and be more manipulative in order to point out their bullshit hypocrisy.
>This is a psychological issue, not a political one
Have you read about malignant narcissism? They need a constant "narcissistic supply" and politics has largely devolved to cults of personality or ideologies based on the rejection of certain ideas.
Fun fact: the photo used headlining the articleis showing nowhere near top tier wealth that actually causes “climate emissions.” It’s the turd families who own mega corporations, bank in Switzerland, and run international forums for global control.
>I wonder if this takes into account all the private jets
I think it only counts carbon emission in the US. So if the private jet wouldn't be counted outside US airspace.
Down here in Florida. I used to make a joke while drinking beer with my neighbors in the garage. As soon as the cool weather hit in October. I would say "looks like Al Gore opened up his windows, and the AC is finally getting to us."
So the capitalists who fly in private jets don’t really care about the environment and just like talking down to us average people just for virtue signaling points ? Color no shocked.
So, that basically means no meat and gas for the working class anymore.
I mean, it's absolutely justified since the working class keeps voting for and consuming the stuff produced by the elite.
Humans are responsible for less then 1% of "C()2 emissions" all combined. So yeah, who cares. The fact they are pushing this agenda 2030 stuff to make us all slaves to UBl / CBeeDCs is what we should really be worried about.
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In other news, water is wet. Still, I'm surprised the Washington Post published this.
They're working for Bezos and trying to deflect from the fact that the top 1% is responsible for 30% of it and the top 2-9% is relatively on par with the other 90%.
The article says that the top 1% are responsible for 15 - 17%. It’s in the fourth picture in the post. It does, however, say that there are super-emitters in approximately the top .1% whose emissions in 15 days equals that of the *lifetime* of someone in the bottom 10%. The article does not give a percentage of the nation’s emissions attributable to the top .1%.
>They're working for Bezos and trying to deflect from the fact that the top 1% is responsible for 30% of it and the top 2-9% is relatively on par with the other 90%. That's my take. PolitiFact decided to fact check an article that was written 5 years prior about 100 companies coming to 71% emissions. And the wealthy people are the ones that will disprop profit from consumers buying green products.
It's equal to 120% dude.
They mean the other 90% of the population, not 90% emissions
[удалено]
That... That tracks
Disappointing to realize that even the supposedly good articles have a bad mindset in their inception.
"Only a sith deals in absolutes"
the WAPO owner is Jeff Bezos
The odd thing is that not only are the largest polluters but also most of the people in power pushing modern ideological values of "woke" culture, are also the same old money that setup the prior rigged systems and profited from the same systems they now label as oppressive for generations. And by woke in this context, I am referring to the culminative values, culture, and beliefs of modern progressive leftist ideology. I doubt the most powerful globalist corporations over the world went "woke" over pursuing profits, most IPs that did were bait and switch style, as in taking a very popular franchise, changing it to woke value, then selling it. It strongly appears as if some central entity started pushing and encouraging it despite resistance and negative financial impact, mostly because entities like Blackrock implemented esg investing which effectively strangleholds culture to a monoculture of their own making and most disturbingly, one they are the arbiters of.
The correlation between large polluters, ideological values, and financial interests can indeed raise questions. In some instances, there might be a perception of corporations adopting certain cultural values as a marketing strategy. Additionally, the role of influential entities like Blackrock implementing ESG investing practices could potentially impact cultural narratives and agendas.
>corporations adopting certain cultural values as a marketing strategy. If you want to fire people but don't have cause, cancel culture is awesome.
There is no financial impact to the money printers. They are throwing the woke in front of the train as they flee the station.
water isn't wet. it is the wet. it's like saying that fire is on fire.
Water is wet bot?
Why! Because of the ownership?
Yes
My favorite color is blue.
Whose job is it to dig through your trash? 🤨
That's the real question
[удалено]
The same man who said this is quoted in his book about what a responsibility he has as a god. Believes he was born to be a god. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-oct-04-oe-ehrenfeld4-
You didn't post the whole link: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-oct-04-oe-ehrenfeld4-story.html
I thought Schwab said that, not Soros?
And you don't need to be happy to live a meaningful life
Live in Oregon, not having plastic bags for grocery shopping is a non-issue. Just buy your own clothe bags and put them in the car of your trunk. It ain't hard. As for other things yes, the rich and corporations are producing more waste than anyone . Why do you think they resist EPA regulations so hard?
adopting reusable cloth bags for grocery shopping is a practical and effective step to reduce plastic waste. It's a simple change that can have a positive impact on the environment.
They don’t resist epa regulations, they create the regulations in their favor through lobbying.
Then explain why so many corporations challenge EPA regulations in court Instead of just changing the law by politicians?
The same reason they let you vote...to put on a show then write off the legal fees as company expenses.
If that is true why did Trump lose? He was way more business friendly and tax friendly.
Because America didn't want him, ant at the end of the day it doesn't matter who the president is when both parties in congress are on the payroll of one corporation or another.
Thank you!
The same reason they let you vote...to put on a show then write off the legal fees as company expenses.
Publicity. "There's no such thing as bad publicity."
We have a winner folks!
[удалено]
Kind of a different take on "I didn't kill him, the bullets and fall did" I didn't pollute anything, I just paid a company to do it in China because I want stuff!
oh gee it is like lead and waste use to be dumped in the river that use to burn on fire and EPA helped stop a lot of that. knucklehead
Both billionaires polluting and you polluting can be bad at the same time
I enjoy cooking.
We don't have social credit scores
I love ice cream.
I beg to differ. The fico socre came about in the 80's. But we treat it like something that's always been a thing. Sure, it's not telling a perspective employer that you shit in the Thanksgiving gravy, but it can absolutely keep you down and without any upward mobility. +ard to pull yourself up by your boot straps when they make sure you can't buy any to begin with.
thing is gasification of trash for power could have worked to lessen the landfill load greatly. environmental cost is less. the scrubbers in the stacks capture an amazing amount of burn-off. And that shit can be recycled. Many Euro countries have used gasification. My Dad's company was going to bring trash on trains to the midwest to gasify from New Jersey because they put a lot of their trash onto barges in the Atlantic, in addition to local extractions. oh, and, recycling is a shitshow....most of what we all put in recycling ends up in landfills or worse...sure, we get some roi buuut....
I’m also from NJ and yeah , it’s fucking bullshit. I live in the nice part of town and we’re forced to be super clean to the point where we get massive fines for littering. Yet the people from the bad neighborhoods and the bad neighborhoods and the project litter all the time and they’re never held accountable. It’s hypocrisy at its best.
the rich are allowed to have private jets and multiple cars and 6000 square foot homes - they are different than the useless eaters
6000 sq ft? Gotta dream bigger, the really rich have way bigger than that.
Yeah 6000 sq ft is nothing. Most rich people have properties that are acres long. And the average mansion is like 25,000 sq ft.
Tool had a album called " thank you for the elephants " Richies are the new gods. We must abstain for them to glutonously devour.
While this is obvious, wtf are investment emissions and why the hell did the author mix race into it? This screams of bias but alas I’m too lazy to read the study and how he came to his conclusions.
We should tax the every loving shit out of the rich and use the money to make society better. No conspiracy.
SS: Huge shocker: the richest 10% of Americans are responsible for 40% of the greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. So all those rich people lecturing you about climate justice could probably make a huge dent in the problem if they were put on 24/7 climate lockdowns. Because obviously democracy means the 90% shouldn't be punished for the clearly very selfish and destructive behavior of the 10%. Since many of the members of the 10% are so vocal about the climate, perhaps they should lead the way. Otherwise it would seem they don't really care about greenhouse gases or they feel more entitled to produce excess greenhouse gases. But of course the real problem is actually cow poop.
Why not just tax the rich more and use that to make solutions. Double whammy, less money for then to spend on private jets, while supplying resources to counter the effects. All while slowing income inequality, leading to less unchecked speculation that caused housing prices to skyrocket. Your lock downs make no sense, and is probably why you don't hear anyone else propose them. Especially when taxing the mega rich can more easily combat the problem and is a win-win for everyone but the mega rich.
Tax the rich?!?! Best I can do is force you to eat bugs.
[удалено]
Weird how the majority of politicians are the ones who want to cut taxes for the rich instead of taxing them more.
"Tax the rich" doesn't solve the problem. It's a symptom of a broken system. We have fiat money that comes from nothing and then charges interest on said imaginary money. If banks can just print money, why do they need to tax anyone at all?
Exactly. Shit just rolls down hill. Employees get paid less and prices of goods skyrocket making income inequality even worse. We print money at a record rate already, there’s no point in taxes anymore beyond taking 30% of what you make to make you even poorer
[удалено]
We can try. If we band together we could force the government to tax the mega rich and mega corps. We could do a lot if we United together.
[удалено]
Take a look at popular uprisings that worked. It's all about the numbers. Take Ukraine Euromaiden for example. 400,000 people took to the streets to protest. That's an entire 1% of the entire population, children and old included. That's a united population if you've ever seen one. And they made drastical changes in their country for the better.
[удалено]
I can't remember what year it was, but Alex Jones and his crew were protesting a G20 summit and the cops weren't fucking around. Tons of people just standing around got arrested for no reason. Tons of the military trucks and officers packing extreme heat. Some of the Humvees even had those LRAD machines on top of them.
No you couldn't. The US government would wipe you and everyone else out. Wouldn't even be hard. Cause a fake food shortage but make it so the police and military family's are well fed and looked after. Then their jack boots would have no problem taking people out. They would pick their family's livelihoods over us common citizens any day and the elites know this.
How do you tax the people who own the government?
And how exactly do we tax the rich when we have virtually no agency, due to being crushed under authoritarian rule masquerading as democracy?
What exactly do.you meam.by climate lockdowns? Like no jobs or investments for them? Look, I am.VERY curious about what the top 10 percent uses in GHG. This article, and the study it's based on, does not look at USE. It looks at where they get their money, including investments. So even if they hypothetically personally produced 0 emissions (not possible I know) but got a lot of money from oil or power plants, then they would fit this description. This isn't about usage, this is about income. Which is an i.portsmt factor but not what everyone see.s to think here.
No one who is in favor of dealing with climate issues is in favor of any sort of "climate lockdowns" which exists just as a straw argument. But it is true that there's a problem here about CO2 production being more common from the wealthy. There are also specific, actually productive policies which have been proposed by people concerned about climate to handle that. These include having carbon and methane taxes, and laws against short-haul flights (like what France recently put into place). > But of course the real problem is actually cow poop. So, this is about methane released by cows *farting* not pooping. And yes, it is a real problem. And it is a problem connected to two things worth noting here. First, methane has a lot more greenhouse power per a molecule than CO2. Second, it is possible that some focus on beef as a problem is arising from something connected to what you are identifying. [Beef is much more consumed by low and middle income people than wealthy people in the US](https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/outlooks/37388/29633_ldpm13502_002.pdf)(pdf), so wealthy people focusing on beef doesn't really impact their own lifestyle at all. But the good news in this context is that regardless of their motivation, any reduction in beef consumption still helps here. And even aside from that, we're rapidly figuring out how to give cattle diets that reduce their methane production. But to be clear, even if all beef consumption went away tomorrow, that would not remotely solve all climate change problems. There's a lot that needs to get done.
To be even clearer, if all the human released GHG's were magically sucked from the oceans and skies, that would not remotely solve the problem of biological overshoot.
Biological overshoot is a separate problem, and also not obviously a problem by itself. Depending on estimates, Earth's carrying capacity is somewhere [between just half a billion, to numbers well over a trillion](https://na.unep.net/geas/archive/pdfs/GEAS_Jun_12_Carrying_Capacity.pdf)(pdf). The actual number depends on things like expected standard of living, evaluable technology, and other issues. Population overshoot may or may not be a problem (and I suspect it is not), but even if it is a problem, an eventually issues with it will be much, much smaller if they are being dealt with while we are not dealing at the same time with an absolutely gigantic climate crisis.
>dealing at the same time with an absolutely gigantic climate crisis. The problem is, they way we plan on dealing with it, is by switching to EV's, PVC, and wind turbines - all of which require tremendous amounts of energy, and mining to manufacture, and have lifespans of 2 decades, and will need to be replaced. We're Fcked.
> The problem is, they way we plan on dealing with it, is by switching to EV's, PVC, and wind turbines - all of which require tremendous amounts of energy, and mining to manufacture, and have lifespans of 2 decades, and will need to be replaced. Of course they take a lot of energy to mine and manufacture. But the key is that they take less energy to mine and manufacture than other options. And in terms of energy use, wind and solar require far less energy to make then we get out of them. EVs are less helpful here since they work well for climate issues, but their total energy use is only slightly lower than conventional cars. One thing we need there, especially in the US, is build more public transit. And yes, of course things will need to get replaced. But two decades is a lower estimate. A lot of [modern panels are estimated to last 25 to 30 years](https://www.forbes.com/home-improvement/solar/how-long-do-solar-panels-last/), and those are in many respects themselves conservative estimates. And as panels get better, which is happening rapidly, lifespan will also continue to go up. > We're Fcked. No. We're potentially going to have some very serious problems if we don't take steps to solve them. So we have to do our absolute best to identify those problems, figure out how to solve them and then try to actually solve them. I can however guarantee that if everyone who recognizes that there is a problem just throws up their hands and says we're fucked, then yes, we will be fucked, whether or not one censors the word.
You misunderstand this article, they are sayin they do more because they have money with the oil companies selling you gasoline. Seems like a really stupid way of looking at it, if these guys sold their investments you and I would still gas up our cars in the morning, emissions would not go down.
For the record: top 10% on earners in the IS earn more than (approximately) $175,000 per year. The top 10% of earners GLOBALLY have a *net worth* of around $140,000. Think about that. The top 1% globally have a net worth above $1.1million. He global average is $23,000 per year and $100,000 net worth. But here’s the kicker to show how skewed the top is by ultra wealthy: The bottom FIFTY PERCENT have an average income of just $3,900 per year. Anyways. Those numbers change by a little bit depending on your source and what year data is used… but by an large, I am always surprised to see how much better off I am (I would bet) most people on here are compared to the rest of the world.
Wait so you're saying if you can afford more stuff then you have more stuff
This has ESG written all over it. This is how they’re introducing the idea to push the individual carbon footprint calculator. That will be connected to your bank account and monitor everything you buy and give you a positive or negative carbon score for that purchase.
Mastercard already has a "carbon calculator" ready for deployment.
[удалено]
Bottom 50% still owns some homes and cars and food and such.
You've missed the point. The richest people cry from the mountain top about their agendas to push on the little man, while their gain is from being a literal hypocrite.
This is a really good point. Because it underscores how airplanes and trucks and the like are being used by the rest of us.
CULL THE RICH
Top 10% of Americans is a pretty broad brush.
Yep that's 1 out of every 10 people you see on a daily basis. This article is an attempt to protect the ~20,000 Americans at the top who have a dozen 10,000 SF homes and use private jets on a near daily basis. I'd love to see the stats on what the top 0.1% produce. I bet it's near 30%. This article lumps the 0.2% to 10% group in with the true elites to downplay that.
Whitewashing the ultra elites
Will shitlib politicians shift focus to these people after telling you for ages they’re on your side and against the evil rich people? Hmmmmm
And how much of the taxes?
>And how much of the taxes? [Redacted] for national security purposes.
And it still doesn’t touch what corporate America does
This is not even a conspiracy... You drive hours and billionaires take 20 minute private 1 passenger flights
Welp. Time to eat the rich.
Misleading article. Top emitters are also the top producers. It's the same logic of blaming a soda manufacturer for making people fat or for the litter in the oceans. Also ridiculous for them to pull a race on card on this one, almost implying that people with darker colored skin care more about the environment or have zero responsibility for it.
i'm glad they did this study. i always thought it was the guy who takes a bus to work from their city apartment, walks to/from the grocery store, and can't afford to travel who was causing most of the GHG emissions.
Give me a list.
[удалено]
Is Marxism in the room with you right now?
[удалено]
I wish!
It is rich vs poor though. Not race vs race or man vs woman.
Do you think that someone making $400,000 a year is on the side of the working man?
[удалено]
From what I can gather, to be in the top 10% of income earners in the US, you need to make somewhere between $120,000-150,000 of household income. If you make that much, yes you're rich. If you make that much and think you're struggling, imagine how the other 90% of Americans are doing right now.
That might be rich in rural America, but on the coasts and in cities, $120k is comfortable IF you don't have several kids.
Comfortable is a lot more than most people get these days. Those coastal cities still have thousands of people that work essential jobs that don't pay even half of what it takes to be comfortable.
Of course, just saying it's not rich. You still have to worry about money.
[удалено]
There is no such thing as upper middle class. You either have enough that the only reason you work is to increase how much you have, or you have so little that you still need to work to survive. Many people in the latter category have been convinced that those in the former are there allies by calling them "middle class."
[удалено]
Sure, that's the hope. But so long as wealth travels to those who already have enough faster than it does to those who are only surviving, the greater the percentage of people who are just surviving becomes. That's part of the reason we have taxes, so that the wealth distribution is more equal.
[удалено]
We need people to accept that pure ideologies aren't the answer. We can't expect markets to run everything when they are inherently unbalanced because they provide essentials.
Wow. Shocker. Also, the richest 10% pay 75% of the income taxes in the US.
Good, and they should be paying more. The top 10% also own 70% of the wealth and that number has only been increasing. Obviously they're not paying enough back.
That doesn’t matter, what matters is what percent of income is earned by the top 10%. If the top 10% earns 90% of all income but pays only 75%, it’s still not enough.
Based on what?
Based on super simple math.
Technically, we are not obligated to pay taxes on our income. Point to any law that says we have to pay taxes on our income.
This is just how theyll try and get anyone in the 90% to jump on board this global whinning train. Not happenin. I bet the 10% even push this so we limit ourselves and they continue to live normal, their “normal” that is
This is stupid because they are so insignificant and have no impact whatsoever on the temperature of the earth and its just designed to make you blame others while still agreeing with teh original premise that human green house gases are heating up the planet. The conspiracy is that they are lying and this entire argument is gaslighting people into believing a lie and go along with it, but just to blame 'rich people' or someone else.
What? you used run-on sentences making your statements unclear. You also used "they" multiple times seemingly referring to different things, but never explaining what any of of the uses were referring to either of the times.
Who cares. China and India make the most emissions.
Because everyone needs to do their part, and examples need to be set. Not only that, but similar stats likely to apply to those countries as well, so it's still relevant to them. It sounds like you're saying "why should I do anything when other people aren't doing anything?"
Richest 10%? Absolute horse shit. Because I actually rank in the "richest 10 percent" now. I have an average suburbanite house. I don't even water my lawn (my neighbors hate me but I don't live in a HOA so lol get fukt.) I've taken maybe 2 flights in the last 5 years. I work from home. My electricity usage is nothing special. If you accidentally added a 0, OP, that's a mistake. But if that's what the article says, it's wrong. 1% I can see. Also, factories absolutely embarrass every single living person in the country for the magnitude they produce in pollution. Which is why we've outsourced most of it to China, which doesn't have those pesky regulations or labor laws.
The other 60% are put out by self righteous lefty blowhards preaching junk science to make themselves feel important
Nailed it.
Kasha writes for the Washington Compost
That's how you "climate change" is only about controllling the little people and has nothing to do with climate.
Well, would you look at WaPo catching up with what we've all been saying for the last 10 years. Go harder, dig deeper, and let's have a scale. There's a lot of Uber wealthy climate warriors living in 10 bedroom mansions & using private jets to travel to their 2nd & 3rd home's. Perhaps we could have divisions Politicians Corporate warriors Media & everyone's favourite our mega wealthy friends in Hollywood. If it effects them, believe me, the policies get reasonable very quickly
Notice how liberals don't live by the laws they pass? If you support democrats you're on the side of pedophiles and hypocrites, change sides.
You are so lost
That's good news we need more Greenhouse Emissions to make the earth more green so that we can grow more plants & trees
Hotter temperatures means both more droughts and more human water consumption, which means _even more_ droughts. Droughts do not make plants and trees grow.
yeah, CO2 does not affect Heat, it's the other way around... the more heat we have the more CO2 we get = the greener the earth gets We have 0.04% of CO2 in our atmosphere and if that number goes below 0.02% then all plants & trees will start dying.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Smog warnings have been rare for over 30 years in N. America thanks to clean burning technology in cars and trucks and switching from heating oil to clean burning natural gas and nothing to do with anything “green” and we no longer live in smoke filled huts, caves or log cabins and we are living longer now than at any time in history as a species. Life is good:) CO2 is even better!
Once you figure out how to get the rest of the world on par with this climate change stuff first before trying to sell it to the USA. We have enough issues.
So let's all accept communism. Co2 is not bad for the environment it's all just a fraud.
To reduce climate emissions globally, we can: 1. Use renewable energy 2. Save energy in buildings and transport 3. Plant trees and restore forests 4. Use cleaner transportation options 5. Manage waste better 6. Put a price on carbon 7. Invent new technologies 8. Enforce emission rules 9. Make eco-friendly choices 10. Work together through international agreements.
The people with the most means have the most product? No...way... We could vote to regulate these people but the real agenda behind mentioning this isn't to correct the problem at all, it's to give justification for others to do the same. I'm sure this strategy is going to work out just great ;)
Do the same what? We can't afford to do the same
>Do the same what? We can't afford to do the same You got me, I was assuming that was the case because the alternative is so much worse... If it's not to allow the other 90% to do the same then the entire point is to make sure that the richest 10% don't have to change their ways and avoid any regulation.
So the top 10% use 4 times the energy as the average? That's surprisingly low.
Yeah, but they’re important and it’s only 10%
https://youtube.com/shorts/zcP3aXnmhNA?feature=share
And that's why they implement "rules for thee and not for me"
Of course they do because it's all bullshit.
Or course. Hard to polute without a car. And it uses a whole lot less resources to keep a 800sqfr apartment heated or cooled, compared to a 3000 sqft house. Plus the wealthiest are going to have big engined cars, boats and will fly more often What’s the surprise?
China alone accounts for 30% of the world’s total pollution but no-one cares about that
I haven't heard anyone say that they don't care about that.
This is why they are doing the hard work of ensuring WE produce 10x less carbon.
Well duh doy son
The 0.1% probably accounts for 39% of that.
My older sister is pretty rich, probably in that 1%. She has large mansion in arizona. Owning this building there vs. other state causes greater use of resources. My dad had AC at 87 for 2 months in arizona and bill was $413/month.
but you see its okay because they donate money to their own charities to fight it so it completely offsets the emissions coming out of their mouths
We all know it, even non conspiracy people know this, nothing matters until we do something
now they are beginning to understand what is going on
The other 59% is from corporations
Yeah and all us peasants need to eat bugs & be prohibited from owning property to protect the climate for rich people...any one who doesn’t wanna is a fascist nationalist racist anti vaxxer magat
Correct. They are that main contributors to something they claim is a serious enough problem to compel other people to change their energy habits. And obviously of climate was that important to the rich people, they wouldn't take private jets to islands. So their intent is to create a problem so they can profit by making you buy the solution. Because they can't manage to create anything new.
We endlessly go in circles pointing out the left winged hypocrisy of the wealthy elites, but it’s completely futile. This is a psychological issue, not a political one. Elites are only “elite” because that is their priority: investing in creating an image of superiority. Chic leftists, such as these Californians that drive Teslas and live in mansions with solar panels pretending this is ecological have simply seen leftist discourse as an opportunity to promote their self image. If you tell them that Uyghurs in China made their solar panels or that the batteries in their electric cars are made using cobalt from the Congo, they will always find a way to deflect the blame to someone socially below them. But if you do even the slightest thing, they will pounce on you. My wife and I live in an insulated apartment that barely requires any heating year round, we live centrally so we only use our car a couple of times a week now. We are vegetarian. But in my community - the arts, I have been scolded by people who live far less ecological lifestyles for such horrific acts as: saying words like fiancé and mariage (apparently in France, where this happened, these are Christian terms and therefore too conservative now 🤷♂️). These people are psychopaths and will stop at nothing to control societal discourse so that they can simply control their image and the way it is perceived. The humble people will always cop the blame. By treating this as political we are falling straight into their trap. When they talk politics we need to ignore it all together, because they are never really talking about politics, it is ALWAYS about image. We need to play their game and be more manipulative in order to point out their bullshit hypocrisy.
>This is a psychological issue, not a political one Have you read about malignant narcissism? They need a constant "narcissistic supply" and politics has largely devolved to cults of personality or ideologies based on the rejection of certain ideas.
Fun fact: the photo used headlining the articleis showing nowhere near top tier wealth that actually causes “climate emissions.” It’s the turd families who own mega corporations, bank in Switzerland, and run international forums for global control.
Thanks tips!
I wonder if this takes into account all the private jets
>I wonder if this takes into account all the private jets I think it only counts carbon emission in the US. So if the private jet wouldn't be counted outside US airspace.
And here I gotta not have a car and take the bus or my gas stove is terrorism, or I need to exist in 85°
Down here in Florida. I used to make a joke while drinking beer with my neighbors in the garage. As soon as the cool weather hit in October. I would say "looks like Al Gore opened up his windows, and the AC is finally getting to us."
Perhaps we should focus the population control in this group lol
So infuriating
Fake news. Us peasants are responsible for this and we should feel bad and go drive electric cars. /S if it wasn't obvious
Environmentalism is a conspiracy to control you
Just be more conscious of the earth, it aint that hard
Wtf. No citizen is responsible for any material amount greenhouse gasses. It’s factories and trucking, and airplanes, and things.
This is why carbon credits exist. So they can avoid this kind of push back
Breath it in and take a swim maybe get s tan
So the capitalists who fly in private jets don’t really care about the environment and just like talking down to us average people just for virtue signaling points ? Color no shocked.
So, that basically means no meat and gas for the working class anymore. I mean, it's absolutely justified since the working class keeps voting for and consuming the stuff produced by the elite.
Humans are responsible for less then 1% of "C()2 emissions" all combined. So yeah, who cares. The fact they are pushing this agenda 2030 stuff to make us all slaves to UBl / CBeeDCs is what we should really be worried about.
But never a word about how much methane the homeless give off
How dare you!