One percent produce 20 times more Greenhouse gasses than 50% of population - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15201271
le Devoir wrote:The rich emit 20 times more GHGs per person
than the poorest half of Canadians


The individual climate footprint of half of the poorest Canadians is already below the country’s target for 2030, experts say. The average for the richest 1% is 20 times higher.


An article in today's Devoir (French) reveals that the richest 1% of Canadians create 20 times more greenhouse gasses (the kind that is killing the planet) than the less wealthy half of the population.

The lower-middle class and below (50%) have already met Canada's climate objectives for 2030. But the richest tiers consume vastly more greenhouse-gas causing products than the poorer half.

Greenhouse gasses per capita

Canada average_____Less wealthy 50%_______Next 40%_____Wealthiest 1%
19.4 tonnes_______10 tonnes____________21 tonnes_____190 tonnes(!)

This is true across cultures and in all societies that are unequal:

LIM experts thus calculated that behind global emissions equivalent to 6.6 tonnes of CO2 per person in 2019, the poorest half of the human population actually averaged only 1.6 tonnes, compared to 6.6 tonnes for the next 40%, 31 tonnes for the richest 10% and 110 tonnes for the richest 1%. The phenomenon is repeated in the United States - where the 50% of the poorest have an average footprint of 9.7 tons per individual against almost 75 tons for the 10% of the richest -, in France (5 tons against 25), and even in China (3 tons against 36).


And yet, it is the polluting classes who own all the media, control our politicians, and invoke us to feel guilty about being such polluting pigs. They are making normal people feel "guilt" about the pollution that the rich are the biggest contributors to by far.

My cousin - who is upper middle class - once said that she didn't like poor people because they don't follow the same strict hygiene standards as the upper classes do.

Turns out, it was the rich all along who have been destroying everything, and are by far the dirtiest members of their societies. It is the slagTM that rises to the top (lots of it) under capitalism.

Why create these rich individuals in the first place (as a society) if the most important thing they have to offer is extinction-through-consumption?
#15201918
@QatzelOk,

You wrote, [q]
Greenhouse gasses per capita

Canada average_____Less wealthy 50%_______Next 40%_____Wealthiest 1%
19.4 tonnes_______10 tonnes____________21 tonnes_____190 tonnes(!)
[/q]

These numbers are screwed up. Just what is the Canadian average an average of? If it is the total, then the bottom 90% use more than the total, and the top 1% use 6 times more than the total.
It also leaves out what the 91% to 99% use.
.
#15202046
Steve_American wrote:@QatzelOk,

You wrote, [q]
Greenhouse gasses per capita

Canada average_____Less wealthy 50%_______Next 40%_____Wealthiest 1%
19.4 tonnes_______10 tonnes____________21 tonnes_____190 tonnes(!)
[/q]

These numbers are screwed up. Just what is the Canadian average an average of? If it is the total, then the bottom 90% use more than the total, and the top 1% use 6 times more than the total.
It also leaves out what the 91% to 99% use.
.

These numbers are "per capita," which means that each of the bottom half of Canadian income earners... each one of them- man, woman, and child - produces 10 tonnes.

On the other hand, each super-rich prima-donna (the 1%) - each man, woman and child - produces 190 tonnes.

Of course, children produce less than adults, but the wealth categories are PER PERSON and are shockingly different because the upper 1% control the fossil fuel industries and burn through tons of spice.
#15202066
This is the second time we've had somebody say we can lay it all on the rich.

Which is just plain weird.

I suspect this is the 5,000th Big Oil propaganda campaign trying to convince people they don't have to do anything.

Which is dumb and crazy...

A bunch of countries are trying carbon pricing schemes, but I don't trust them. My gut tells me there is one choice that will actually work, and it's a Carbon Tax.
#15202074
late wrote:
This is the second time we've had somebody say we can lay it all on the rich.

Which is just plain weird.

I suspect this is the 5,000th Big Oil propaganda campaign trying to convince people they don't have to do anything.

Which is dumb and crazy...

A bunch of countries are trying carbon pricing schemes, but I don't trust them. My gut tells me there is one choice that will actually work, and it's a Carbon Tax.



Some say algae / aquaponics, and I've also heard cannabis / hemp plants, for CO2 capture.
#15202076
late wrote:I suspect this is the 5,000th Big Oil propaganda campaign trying to convince people they don't have to do anything.

Actually, no.

One of the reasons that the 1% are credited with so much GHG emissions is that they own virtually all the stock in oil companies and other fossil fuel industries, as well as sit on their boards, and hire lobbyists to keep their world burning... I mean turning.

The huge demand for oil and cars comes from oil companies and car companies. They have ways of making us use their products, and they are headed by the 1%.

So it's not likely that Oil companies are smearing their own contribution to GHG with this article.
#15202080
QatzelOk wrote:
Actually, no.

One of the reasons that the 1% are credited with so much GHG emissions is that they own virtually all the stock in oil companies and other fossil fuel industries, as well as sit on their boards, and hire lobbyists to keep their world burning... I mean turning.

The huge demand for oil and cars comes from oil companies and car companies. They have ways of making us use their products, and they are headed by the 1%.

So it's not likely that Oil companies are smearing their own contribution to GHG with this article.



Actually, yes.

If you want to fix this, the blame game won't do it.
#15202212
late wrote:This is the second time we've had somebody say we can lay it all on the rich.

Which is just plain weird.

I suspect this is the 5,000th Big Oil propaganda campaign trying to convince people they don't have to do anything.

Which is dumb and crazy...

A bunch of countries are trying carbon pricing schemes, but I don't trust them. My gut tells me there is one choice that will actually work, and it's a Carbon Tax.


@late,
I really don't care what your 'opinion' is.
The only way we are going to fix ACC, is with the truth. No matter what the truth is, facing it is the only way.
If the rich are a huge part of the problem and they will not change, then there is nothing the rest of us can do to fix that problem.

If what you mean is that it will be hard to get the rich to change, then we agree on that.

BTW --- for example, yesterday I saw on Breaking Points that 'inflation' is hitting private jets hard.
Their prices are up 20%. This is almost as much as OPEC has driven up oil prices.
.
#15202222
Steve_American wrote:
@late,
I really don't care what your 'opinion' is.
The only way we are going to fix ACC, is with the truth. No matter what the truth is, facing it is the only way.
If the rich are a huge part of the problem and they will not change, then there is nothing the rest of us can do to fix that problem.

If what you mean is that it will be hard to get the rich to change, then we agree on that.

BTW --- for example, yesterday I saw on Breaking Points that 'inflation' is hitting private jets hard.
Their prices are up 20%. This is almost as much as OPEC has driven up oil prices.



Carbon taxes work, that's what we in the real world call a fact.

Pricing schemes always have problems.

To put it a little differently, you're not going to drastically reduce carbon emissions with slick yak... We should have started a generation ago, more talk isn't going to cut it...

The price of most things is going up, items that sell in small numbers will have to pass on costs quicker than mass market items, as a rule of thumb.
#15202230
late wrote:Carbon taxes work, that's what we in the real world call a fact.

Pricing schemes always have problems.

To put it a little differently, you're not going to drastically reduce carbon emissions with slick yak... We should have started a generation ago, more talk isn't going to cut it...

The price of most things is going up, items that sell in small numbers will have to pass on costs quicker than mass market items, as a rule of thumb.


@ late,
AFAIK, no nation has passed a large enough carbon tax to matter at all.

Therefore, we do not know if a carbon tax will work.

The main reason for this is that it will not pass over the opposition of the groups that will be the hardest hit. E.g., rural people need more gas because they drive further and there is no public transportation. The rich burn 19 times more per person in Canada as the bottom 50% do, so a carbon tax will hit them somewhat over 19 times harder (after the rebate is counted in). So, they will also oppose it. Hell, the selfish bastards want tax cuts. And, get them.

If the rich are buying private jets, that is strong evidence that they are not going to reduce their carbon foot print.
#15202232
Steve_American wrote:
@ late,
AFAIK, no nation has passed a large enough carbon tax to matter at all.

Therefore, we do not know if a carbon tax will work.

The main reason for this is that it will not pass over the opposition of the groups that will be the hardest hit. E.g., rural people need more gas because they drive further and there is no public transportation. The rich burn 19 times more per person in Canada as the bottom 50% do, so a carbon tax will hit them somewhat over 19 times harder (after the rebate is counted in). So, they will also oppose it. Hell, the selfish bastards want tax cuts. And, get them.

If the rich are buying private jets, that is strong evidence that they are not going to reduce their carbon foot print.



You haven't looked into it.

Rural people have very little real power. Big Oil, on the other hand, has Congress by the balls...

I have little tolerance for BS. If a rich guy wants to buy a Ferrari, or a jet, I don't care. It doesn't matter. This is just dumb propaganda, I'm surprised you bought it.

As you pointed out, there would be a rebate. Actually, it would prob need to be part of a package deal to sweeten the pot for the poor and lower middle class. Also, the reality is, just like everybody else, most of the rural poor drive large vehicles. This would give them an incentive to seek more efficient transportation.

Lastly, there is a mind boggling stupidity of letting life on the planet get cooked so hillbillies can keep driving trucks..
#15202241
late wrote:You haven't looked into it.

Rural people have very little real power. Big Oil, on the other hand, has Congress by the balls...

I have little tolerance for BS. If a rich guy wants to buy a Ferrari, or a jet, I don't care. It doesn't matter. This is just dumb propaganda, I'm surprised you bought it.

As you pointed out, there would be a rebate. Actually, it would prob need to be part of a package deal to sweeten the pot for the poor and lower middle class. Also, the reality is, just like everybody else, most of the rural poor drive large vehicles. This would give them an incentive to seek more efficient transportation.

Lastly, there is a mind boggling stupidity of letting life on the planet get cooked so hillbillies can keep driving trucks..


@ late,
In France the rural people demonstrated for many months and got their way. See, Yellow vests.

Of course it is stupid to deny ACC and do nothing.

But, that is what we have done for 30 or 40 years now.

In the US the rural states control the Senate. That seems like enough power to block your carbon tax.

And, please, respond to my point that there is no large enough carbon tax, yet. Do you know of one?
.
#15202244
I think discussions like these often forget one important thing:

There are actually quite a lot of the non-rich population who put getting rich above everything else.

Even if you subdue the "current" rich (for whatever agenda), there will be replacements.

And it does not have to be in one country (e.g. the United States)

Wait until China and / or India rises.
#15202256
Steve_American wrote:
@ late,
In France the rural people demonstrated for many months and got their way. See, Yellow vests.

Of course it is stupid to deny ACC and do nothing.


In the US the rural states control the Senate. That seems like enough power to block your carbon tax.

And, please, respond to my point that there is no large enough carbon tax, yet. Do you know of one?



This isn't France, for all their flaws, they don't see people as disposable.

But that's pretty much what we are doing.

Pretty much, we will need a strong Progressive movement.

"(The author) focusing primarily on British Columbia’s “textbook” revenue-neutral carbon tax. By 2007, warmer winters in the province had eliminated the extreme cold needed to control the mountain pine beetle, now wrecking highly visible and widespread damage on British Columbia’s prized forests. Responding to public alarm, Gordon Campbell from the centrist Liberal Party campaigned on a carbon tax, inserting it as a “wedge” to win election in a three-way race.[4] Campbell quickly enacted and rapidly implemented[5] the tax, initially set at $10 (Canadian)/tonne CO2 and scheduled to rise to $30 in $5 annual increments. In 2009, Campbell handily won re-election, in what amounted to a referendum on the carbon tax. In addition to its remarkable popularity, several credible analyses concluded that BC’s carbon tax was even more effective than expected at reducing emissions, while BC’s economy grew faster than the rest of Canada.[6]

The popularity and durability of BC’s carbon tax is widely attributed to Campbell’s decision to guarantee return of all carbon tax revenue via direct distributions, tax cuts and credits to individuals and businesses. "

https://carbontaxnetwork.org/2018/05/15/book-review-can-we-price-carbon/
#15202260

The bulk of the emissions reductions in the Biden plan would come through a loosely-described legislative enforcement mechanism that would mandate that the US reach net-zero emissions by 2050. Such an enforcement mechanism would most likely be modeled after the so-called “cap and trade” programs in various states of the US Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions, California and Europe, in which a governmental agency allocates tradeable permits for greenhouse gas emissions and reduces the number of permits in circulation over time.

Another commonly proposed option would be a carbon tax on emissions, presumably escalating over time. California, generally considered to be an environmental leader within the US, already has programs and targets similar to those proposed by Biden. Even so, California will need to cut emissions by 4.9 percent annually from 2020 to 2030 to reach its targets, but has so far never achieved a reduction beyond 2.9 percent outside of a recession. Much of the rest of the US is far behind California and would need to transition even faster.

These examples illustrate the modest ambitions and wishful thinking that underlie the proposed Biden climate plan. The list of inadequate solutions above could easily go on to include sectors such as aviation, agriculture, building efficiency, urban planning, hydrogen, carbon capture and more. If implemented, the Biden plan would unquestionably result in a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the US, but the plan does not represent a serious attempt to limit global warming below dangerous levels. It is an effort to appease popular demands, particularly from young people, without imposing undue burdens on corporate interests.

As timid as Biden’s legislative agenda is, it is unlikely to pass Congress in anything resembling its proposed form. Biden proposes to fund this $1.7 trillion plan in large part by ending the Trump tax cuts, which will be fiercely defended by Wall Street and its representatives in both parties. Biden also proposes measures to reduce corporate tax evasion and remove fossil fuel subsidies. This is Biden’s starting position for what will inevitably be a protracted negotiation with Republicans and Democrats alike, which will lead to further watering down of already token measures.

Biden’s $1.7 trillion climate change plan, even if it passed exactly as proposed, would provide, over 10 years, less than half the sums handed out to the banks and major corporations in a single bill, last year’s CARES Act. At $170 billion per year, the fight against a global environmental catastrophe would be less than a quarter of the $740 billion in 2021 military spending. The Democrats and Republicans will hand out trillions to the banks and the military at the drop of a hat, but when it comes to the survival of the human species, they will do nothing that threatens the profits of American corporations.

Climate change is among the greatest threats facing humanity today. The Biden climate plan illustrates the impossibility of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, even in a single country, at the rate required to prevent dangerous levels of warming. Rising to this challenge will require rational economic planning at an international scale. The only serious fight against climate change is the struggle for socialism.



https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/0 ... m-j27.html
#15202306
late wrote:If you want to fix this, the blame game won't do it.

If we want to fix this, we have to understand the dynamics of it.

And if the dynamics is that a tiny elite keep all these techno-scams going in order to make easy money off everyone else, then that has to be changed if we don't want to see our species and many others disappear.

Your protecting of the rich and their rackets.... is really a huge part of the problem.

The false consciousness that your empty words signify are a symptom of the public's commercial-propaganda trance.
#15202312
QatzelOk wrote:
If we want to fix this, we have to understand the dynamics of it.

And if the dynamics is that a tiny elite keep all these techno-scams going in order to make easy money off everyone else, then that has to be changed if we don't want to see our species and many others disappear.

Your protecting of the rich and their rackets.... is really a huge part of the problem.

The false consciousness that your empty words signify are a symptom of the public's commercial-propaganda trance.



You don't seem to realise how far to the Right America has gone. Look at the way Republicans, at their masters command, limit even modest reform. And stop anything that would bother them...

The reality is until we get a Carbon Tax, we are just making teeny tiny moves to make it look like we're doing something.

Big Oil keeps burying the country in crap, this is just more of it. It's just another distraction. All I am trying to do is remind people there is a real world out there, in the hopes they will one day get off their ass and fight for their lives.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 18

https://youtu.be/PIFiJdw0uME 2016.

There is no risk of war with Taiwan in the foresee[…]

And I welcome, on average, NYers are gonna be more[…]

Faith as in trust. But yes, attack faith. You[…]