this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
1164 points (98.0% liked)

World News

38578 readers
2120 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] grue@lemmy.world 96 points 10 months ago (4 children)

ITT: people who don't realize that the article is talking about them because they're either in that 1% or damn close to it.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 24 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Yup most of the Western world is in the top 1 percent. The rest of the Western world benefits from it.

It's me. Hi. I'm the problem. It's me.

[–] aubertlone@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

Quoting Taylor Swift is.... an interesting choice when talking about climate changes.

Didn't her recent tour require 90+ semi trucks just to go from city to city? Not even going to mention all the emissions that result from whenever they have to travel by plane.

Yes, popular music acts that tour are a HUGE part of the problem.

Also, my bad I'm not tryna harp on you just because I recognized a song lyric. I'm a Taylor Swift fan myself. Well, more of a chiefs fan. And by value of the transitive property....

Edit: also apparently all air travel only accounts for about 2% of emissions. So while my point isnt technically wrong it's missing the forest for the trees

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Didn’t her recent tour require 90+ semi trucks just to go from city to city? Not even going to mention all the emissions that result from whenever they have to travel by plane.

Yes, popular music acts that tour are a HUGE part of the problem

They absolutely are not. 90 trucks is nothing.

At any given time there are millions of semis (2.97 million total) driving the streets. Literally every single thing you've ever purchased in your life has been on a semi.

90 trucks driving for a couple months is not significant.

[–] aubertlone@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

I already mentioned I was wrong about the air travel. I looked up the numbers and edited my comment immediately.

Yeah the trucks are a drop in the sea as well.

But stop kidding yourself that the 90 semi trucks is nothing. It's all pollution.

What other tour and/or concert is slipping around 90 semi trucks??

You bring up a good point that there are millions of semi trucks on the road. But that's ridiculous to compare her 90 semi trucks to all the trucks on the road

Let's compare her to other touring artists. To be honest I don't have the numbers off top of my head I'll have to look him up. But I was reading an article the other day about how her tour is one of the largest productions to date.

So no, her 90 trucks are not a huge part of the problem. That wording was wrong on my part. But among touring artist, she is easily one of the biggest polluters.

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Honestly 90 semi trucks are a tiny problem. So once we're down to pop acts, we solved climate issues already. Long solved.

[–] aubertlone@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

As I replied to other people, yes the wording was poor.

But, it's so silly to compare her fleet of semi trucks to all the semi trucks in the world. I mean wouldn't it make a bit more sense to compare her to other touring acts? Was just reading an article yesterday about how hers is one of the largest and most expensive tours ever.

[–] Zpiritual@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That's nothing. If 90 trucks were a HUGE part of the problem we'd have solved that in an hour. The problem is in the millions of trucks, cars, ships, airplanes, plants, etc.

[–] aubertlone@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Yes my wording was terrible. you're right that it's the millions of other things constantly polluting that's the problem.

My point was just that her tour is one of the largest ever. Largest ever also means one of the most polluting ever.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] aubertlone@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

fwiw I used to live in India many years ago.

Was lucky enough to emigrate to the states when I was eight years old. We didn't have a car back then. My dad had a moped that we used a lot.

But yeah, I didn't use to be part of the problem. But now I am as well

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Just how small do you think the western world is? The US alone is 330 million, which is 4% of the world's population.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

And the EU is 450M.

By the numbers a bit less than half the Western world is in the one percent.

Edit - I should have been more clear above. I was thinking about countries, not people.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 24 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] TaTTe@lemmy.world 23 points 10 months ago (1 children)

60% of the US population is like 200 million. 1% of the global population is 80 million. Your maths is way off.

I'd assume something closer to 6% of the US are in the top 1%.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Oh the second source was household income rather than individual, putting the percentage at about 37% of us households are in the globally top 1%.

[–] TaTTe@lemmy.world 17 points 10 months ago

Still doesn't add up. 37% of the US population is 120 million. 1% of the global population is still 80 million.

Are you comparing US household income to global individual income? If that's the case I can see your percentages working, but that comparison doesn't make much sense so I'm still lost.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 11 points 10 months ago

It's funny how often people who are in the global 5-10% talk about how clueless the 1% of the West is, while being so clueless about their own wealth.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The world's population is about 8.1 billion. The top 1% of that is 81 million. The population of the G7 (a reasonable substitute for the richest countries) is approx 800 million. So, if you're in the top 10% and in a G7 country, you're in that top 1%.

Top 10% income in the US is approx $170k per year. That's mid-level manager wages.

[–] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Are you not conflating top 10% of wealthy people with top 10% of wealth? Looking at these differently vastly changes the results, e.g.:

Of course, in the real world numbers are much more skewed and you have hundreds of millions in developing nations at the bottom making literal pennies a day, bringing the "top 10%" of wealth (not top 10% of wealthy people) to include some single mom making 45k in the US.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 5 points 10 months ago

I understand the distinction you're making, but in this case we're talking about the top 1% of wealthiest people. From the article:

The most comprehensive study of global climate inequality ever undertaken shows that this elite group, made up of 77 million people including billionaires, millionaires and those paid more than US$140,000 (£112,500) a year, accounted for 16% of all CO2 emissions in 2019

Also, the phrase "the top 10% of wealth" doesn't really make any sense. How can wealth itself have percentiles? A percentile shows the percentage of scores that a particular score surpassed. So, the wealthiest 10% means people whose wealth is higher than 90% of other people. What would the top 10% of wealth be?

I think the point you're trying to make is that the top 0.01% are much, much wealthier than the typical person in the top 1%, and probably one individual in that top 0.01% probably contributes as much CO2 as hundreds or thousands of people who are merely in the top 1%. And, I fully agree. But, this article has put the cutoff at the top 1%, which includes both Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates but also your dentist, the guy who owns the Chevy dealership, and the woman who manages the HR department.

Two things can be true. In this case, it's that the ultra-wealthy with private jets, multiple houses, etc. live lifestyles that put out vast amounts of CO2. But, also, a fairly average American lifestyle is also very CO2 intensive, compared to how a poor person in India or Cameroon lives.