Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Climate Emergency
Comments
-
No, I am more interested in what other posters think should be done, than what they actually do.blackpool72 said:
Yet you are the one who always asks certain posters what they would do.Chizz said:
This is a really good point. And it's why I think it's better to discuss "what should governments do?", rather than "what are you going to do?"Huskaris said:I think we are very good at saying what other people should be doing, and not very good at doing it ourselves.4 -
Exactly, what else is she going to do?cafcnick1992 said:Nobody is going to stop using their dishwater for climate change ffs.5 -
You can see it that way, or you can say that their governments have made a choice about whether to make life more affordable for its citizens and decided that's what they want to do.Huskaris said:
You're absolutely right on this. It demonstrates an unbelievable lack of leadership from those nations.cafcnick1992 said:
Noble ambitions sure, but a very hard sell when (1) people are very used to cheap travel and cheap food in the UK, (2) people have very little disposable income and are sick of prices going up, and (3) other countries like the USA and Canada have declared war on net zero initiatives and are about to flood North America with cheap energy.Chizz said:
My point was in reference to the suggestion (which I emboldened) that "solving" the over consumption of beef and travel means "we'll be fine". No-one has ever suggested that, as far as I can tell. (Unless anyone cares to say they do think this..?)cafcnick1992 said:
He does have a point though. Wood-burning stoves have massively increased in popularity in a response to net-zero ambitions raising the price of energy.Chizz said:
Literally no-one, anywhere, thinks this.queensland_addick said:
I'd be interested in @Redskin's reply, because I think I'm probably on the same page as him.Siv_in_Norfolk said:@Redskin - You said:
I said some time ago on here that I've been aware that we've been abusing the Earth's natural resources, exploiting its rare Earth materials, dumping thousands of tons of plastic into its seas and oceans and our own effluent into our rivers and streams, for years.
‐--------------------
On a thread about the climate emergency this seems like a good starting point for finding common ground.
I haven't read all of your posts in detail, so please forgive any questions that require repetition. If I recall correctly, you are not in favour of strong state intervention into people's lives.
I'm assuming you would say that the above(quoted actions) are contributing to climate change. How would you suggest we go about changing these practices?
This thread appears to be going around in circles with a clear division based on political grounds, becoming apparent.
Everyone agrees that Climate change is influenced by the actions of mankind.
Everyone cares about the environment and wants clean air and oceans.
In a nutshell, one side believes that rich people and their over consumption of beef, travel etc is the primary problem, solve that and we'll be fine.
Whilst the other (my side) believes that overpopulation, coupled with making vast numbers of people poorer by imposing Green taxes, limiting drilling etc (thus making energy more expensive) actually exasperates the problem rather than improving it, ie shooting ourselves in the foot.
Poorer people are more likely to pollute the planet because their primary focus is quite rightly on feeding themselves and their children, rather than having environmental concerns.
Things like paying to take their rubbish to the tip, or having to pay large electric bills, are to be avoided, whilst installing solar panels or buying electric cars are out of the question for them.
Cooking on an open fire costs next to nothing, burning garbage costs nothing, throwing effluent into the waterways costs nothing, etc etc
An ever increasing population, coupled with a decreasing supply, increases costs, people get poorer, pollution gets worse, as does global warming.
Totally counterproductive.
If you have to illustrate that combating climate change is a dichotomy, by misrepresenting one "side" of that dichotomy, then you're probably wrong to think, in the first place, that there are "two sides". It's footballification, red in tooth and claw.
There are lots of solutions, none of which is the silver bullet, but some of which, when combined, can halt the crisis.
My view is that reducing beef consumption, lowering the carbon cost of travel, using taxes to "nudge" consumers - and producers - into better actions, reducing fossil fuel consumption, driving down the cost of extracting and consuming renewable energy and switching from fossil fuel powered private and public transport to renewables would all have positive effects, hopefully ameliorating the harm we've already done. But I think some "solutions" - such as attempting to reduce the global human population - are so far fetched and would require so many decades to have any measurable effect - that they should be off the table.
No-one will agree with everything I have said, but lots of people will agree with bits of it. In that way, it's very definitely not a "two sides" thing.
Number (3) in particular scares me. The disparity in wealth between us and the Americans is getting worse and a lot of it is politically driven.
In effect we can cause negative externalities to the rest of the world's population in order to benefit ourselves.
That's market failure in my opinion.
We could do the same with North Sea oil, but have decided that impoverishing everyone is the preferred choice.
The obvious answer to me is to do a bit of both until such time that sustainable energy options are mature enough to stand on their own feet. I think that's the way to bring people along with you.0 -
Exactly the point I was making earlier. People prioritise, especially poorer people with limited resources, and most people put those things above, above cutting their Carbon footprint.Jessie said:I must say I admire all you people's effort in this. This is the hottest Not Sports Related thread. I don't see anyone SO enthusiastic about this topic in the place where I am. Everyone is worrying about their jobs, income, health, kids' education, all sorts of bills, etc. Basically financial survival issues. Totally two different worlds....
I believe that China is responsible for around 30% of Global emissions. So if the Chinese are not enthusiastic about the topic, that makes it incredibly difficult for the rest of the world to make much progress.2 -
We could have a National sovereign wealth fund with North Sea oil, but we blew it, and are now onto the last drippings of what is there. We also don't control where it goes in the market, so we can't enrich ourselves. The UK lower living standards then parts of the US aren't about oil
We can use the UK's geography to create a market around renewables and sell the excess energy into Europe (which is harder due to Brexit)5 -
I disagree, not in its effect, but in the messaging. Those in authority who lead take heed of what the public they serve want of them, or they do if they crave power in a democracy. The messaging of consumer demand is hugely significant. If consumers didn't want more environmentally friendly packaging, would the authorities have prioritised it. I blame that Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall character.ShootersHillGuru said:
I said it’s great that many of us are making small changes. Recognising that in my opinion it’s largely insignificant in the greater scheme of things is reality. So many things that would be beneficial and could and should be done are not. The really positive changes must be authority led. Look at food packaging for example. Yes it’s better than it was but it’s still ridiculous the amount of plastics and unnecessary packing we have to dispose of. I can try and do my little bit but just like with plastic straws it has to come in the main from the top. Anyone discouraged by thinking their small contributions are pointless wasn’t really “encouraged” in the first place.swordfish said:
Saying that only discourages people form acting, thinking 'well why should I bother?' Doing something can only be better than doing nothing, and I'm not aware of anyone posting on here who's claimed they can do no more. However, someone on here did post that no one here was making changes to their lifestyles directly in an attempt to combat climate change. He was quickly dispelled of his delusion. And, if only those who could do no more were to post suggestions on the changes that we could all make, not diktats as some seem to have interpreted them, then the thread might look a bit sparse.ShootersHillGuru said:Nobody knows when the tipping point for climate recovery is going to be reached but I’m guessing it’s a lot closer than would make us feel comfortable. It seems to me that what the world is doing at present collectively isn’t enough. Yes it’s great that many of us are making small changes but for everyone that is, there are probably more that aren’t. In the grand scheme it’s pissing in the wind really. Banning boilers and ICE cars are all working towards a solution but not enough quickly enough. Working towards net zero is a fine ambition but 2050 isn’t quickly enough. Look at how the weather has changed in the last 25 years. What’s it going to be like in another 25. I think there are two possible outcomes. We fail miserably and mankind as we know it is fucked or we find a technological solution as yet unknown and we all can sigh with relief. I doubt our current efforts and timescales are going to cut it.
0 -
I've no problem with thise up against it needing to prioritise food, education, health and other necessities. But there is a discussion to be had about the lifestyles of the more fortunate.queensland_addick said:
Exactly the point I was making earlier. People prioritise, especially poorer people with limited resources, and most people put those things above, above cutting their Carbon footprint.Jessie said:I must say I admire all you people's effort in this. This is the hottest Not Sports Related thread. I don't see anyone SO enthusiastic about this topic in the place where I am. Everyone is worrying about their jobs, income, health, kids' education, all sorts of bills, etc. Basically financial survival issues. Totally two different worlds....
I believe that China is responsible for around 30% of Global emissions. So if the Chinese are not enthusiastic about the topic, that makes it incredibly difficult for the rest of the world to make much progress.
For example, expansion of Heathrow and Gatwick is now back on the agenda apparently. So we can all take more flights...everyone ok with that?1 -
One thing I find interesting is the fact we live on an island with some of the biggest tidal fluctuations anywhere on Earth, surely we can find more ways to harness that power? Wind power and tidal energy should be more than enough to offset a lot of our power usage, if we put in place more and better technologies to take advantage of them9
-
Shit poem that.clb74 said:It needs to be a collective effort.
A feeling of were all in this together.
It can be done, restrictions were put on all our lives when covid hit.
I'd love to see a newsflash this afternoon.
Keir appears on the tele, and states
We can't control the rest of the world, but the UK is taking the lead on climate change.
He then announces a list of everything that to be rationed.
Yes Clb74, you can have that bath every day.
The wife will have the hump though as they'll be no water for her to brush her teeth.
Kids will have a melt down when the pads out of battery.
You did leave all the lights on kids.
Why we got to walk 2 miles Dad to see nan?
We used all the petrol up this month on the trip to the seaside.
Why we got to share a 40g bag of crisps between the 4 of us?
I had 3 bags last night and there's no more till next month.
I always remember 1 teacher at school.
1 kid messed about you'd all top up staying behind.
All In it together and hardly any kids messed about.3 -
I think that with yesterdays "drill baby drill" call we can pretty much write off any chance of the world slowing down the climate emergency. Our best chance now is science coming to the rescue and reversing the problem. If they cant then we are leaving future generations literally without a future. Shame on us !4
- Sponsored links:
-
I think Scotland produces enough energy from renewables to power itself.sam3110 said:One thing I find interesting is the fact we live on an island with some of the biggest tidal fluctuations anywhere on Earth, surely we can find more ways to harness that power? Wind power and tidal energy should be more than enough to offset a lot of our power usage, if we put in place more and better technologies to take advantage of them1 -
China makes a huge proportion of the worlds products so some of those emissions are shared. They have over 30% of the worlds solar production and harness more wind than any other country. They are increasing all of these quicker than any other country too, so although their carbon emissions are very high, they are taking green power poruction seriously.queensland_addick said:
Exactly the point I was making earlier. People prioritise, especially poorer people with limited resources, and most people put those things above, above cutting their Carbon footprint.Jessie said:I must say I admire all you people's effort in this. This is the hottest Not Sports Related thread. I don't see anyone SO enthusiastic about this topic in the place where I am. Everyone is worrying about their jobs, income, health, kids' education, all sorts of bills, etc. Basically financial survival issues. Totally two different worlds....
I believe that China is responsible for around 30% of Global emissions. So if the Chinese are not enthusiastic about the topic, that makes it incredibly difficult for the rest of the world to make much progress.5 -
Just 1% of the world’s population was responsible for almost a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions growth over 1990-2019.
Given this information, anyone thinking that "poorer people are more likely to pollute the planet because their primary focus is quite rightly on feeding themselves and their children, rather than having environmental concerns" ought to reconsider their viewpoint.
1 -
3 -
Chizz, does 'responsible for' mean that it is their personal usage, or does that mean that they own/control businesses responsible for that quarter. If it's the former then there really ought to be some controls over their energy usage. If it's the latter, then that's an understandable consequence of the positions they hold in society.Chizz said:Just 1% of the world’s population was responsible for almost a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions growth over 1990-2019.
Given this information, anyone thinking that "poorer people are more likely to pollute the planet because their primary focus is quite rightly on feeding themselves and their children, rather than having environmental concerns" ought to reconsider their viewpoint.
1 -
The climate change agenda will shift to a far more willingness to make the changes that are required globally once the post war generation have gone. Without doubt they are the most selfish generation ever to have walked the planet ( the vast majority of them ) with their final salary pensions, bought their houses for next to nothing and now constantly preach about the terrorists being allowed into the Country everyday lol. If there was a way of removing the vote from the over 70's worldwide it would be a far better place3
-
Right, so they're keeping energy cheap by developing renewable methods alongside existing, proven methods of power generation.arthur said:
China makes a huge proportion of the worlds products so some of those emissions are shared. They have over 30% of the worlds solar production and harness more wind than any other country. They are increasing all of these quicker than any other country too, so although their carbon emissions are very high, they are taking green power poruction seriously.queensland_addick said:
Exactly the point I was making earlier. People prioritise, especially poorer people with limited resources, and most people put those things above, above cutting their Carbon footprint.Jessie said:I must say I admire all you people's effort in this. This is the hottest Not Sports Related thread. I don't see anyone SO enthusiastic about this topic in the place where I am. Everyone is worrying about their jobs, income, health, kids' education, all sorts of bills, etc. Basically financial survival issues. Totally two different worlds....
I believe that China is responsible for around 30% of Global emissions. So if the Chinese are not enthusiastic about the topic, that makes it incredibly difficult for the rest of the world to make much progress.
Why can't we do that? Why are we putting so much reliance on wind and solar energy that, as of 2025, isn't up to it?
As I type this, we're importing nearly 10% of our energy needs, whilst renewables contribute a miserable 15%.0 -
Stig said:
Chizz, does 'responsible for' mean that it is their personal usage, or does that mean that they own/control businesses responsible for that quarter. If it's the former then there really ought to be some controls over their energy usage. If it's the latter, then that's an understandable consequence of the positions they hold in society.Chizz said:Just 1% of the world’s population was responsible for almost a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions growth over 1990-2019.
Given this information, anyone thinking that "poorer people are more likely to pollute the planet because their primary focus is quite rightly on feeding themselves and their children, rather than having environmental concerns" ought to reconsider their viewpoint.Humans release billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. However, these emissions are disproportionately produced by wealthier people, who typically live more carbon-intensive lifestyles.
When assessing individual contributions to global warming, researchers often focus on emissions from goods and services that people consume. This study presents an update to this method by also including the emissions from a person’s investments in their greenhouse gas footprint. This allows the study to more accurately represent the emissions of the wealthy – which largely come from investments. It assesses three components of a person’s greenhouse gas footprint. The first is private consumption – made up of emissions from the direct use of fuel and emissions embedded into goods and services. The second includes emissions from government spending in that person’s country – such as government administration, public roads or defence.
We can't divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint. That absolves everyone of the responsibility for GHG emissions from business. This study enables an equitable measure, showing both the direct consumption carbon costs and the effects of private businesses and government services.
1 -
Absolutely, and no one is saying they should, in fact, not many people want to change much at all, they all want someone else to make those sacrifices.cafcnick1992 said:Nobody is going to stop using their dishwater for climate change ffs.2 -
Exactly, it should be richer people, or highly populated places, or people who take more flights than I do, but never me. Just like taxes.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Absolutely, and no one is saying they should, in fact, not many people want to change much at all, they all want someone else to make those sacrifices.cafcnick1992 said:Nobody is going to stop using their dishwater for climate change ffs.1 - Sponsored links:
-
Stu_of_Kunming said:
Absolutely, and no one is saying they should, in fact, not many people want to change much at all, they all want someone else to make those sacrifices.cafcnick1992 said:Nobody is going to stop using their dishwater for climate change ffs.Spot on. The serious impacts of climate change are in the future - not that far but far enough for most people to take the short-term view. Why should I change (and 'I' in this instance is individuals and governments), it isn't affecting me now? As I said in an earlier post, most humans see their lives, their childrens' and their grandchildrens' futures as the extent of their vision. Governments of every persuasion only see as far as the next election.As a race, we are fucked.4 -
I find this very hard to believe.Chizz said:
Using a fully-loaded dishwasher is likely less harmful to the environment (energy consumption, water use) than washing dishes by hand. FWIW.Stu_of_Kunming said:
As long as someone else has to solve the problem, nothing will ever get solved.ME14addick said:How much better it would be if the oligarchs put their wealth to good use to reduce the gap between rich & poor.
Instead of putting a flag on Mars, they should be spending their money to reduce the drivers of Climate Change. Invest in green sustainable technology that will reduce bills for poorer people, not enrich themselves further by drilling for the fossil fuels that create greenhouse gases and pollute the air. Work on technology that will make solar panels, electric cars, heat pumps and insulation for homes cheaper so that everyone can afford them.
I wouldn't wish it on anyone, but it will take something like a hurricane that flattens Mar a Lago for a change of direction to take place.I wonder how many advocates for changes to other people’s lifestyles have needlessly appliances dishwashers, tumble dryers, heated steering wheels, or just cars?Instinctively the brief time it takes me to run a washing up bowl feels very minimal compared to the dishwasher heating water and drying the contents thereafter. Frankly every evening we do a combination of both so struggle to believe it’s even an option.Is this ‘fact’ backed up anywhere?0 -
Make all public transport minimal cost or free and 24x 7 and tax private cars very heavily.Chizz said:
No, I am more interested in what other posters think should be done, than what they actually do.blackpool72 said:
Yet you are the one who always asks certain posters what they would do.Chizz said:
This is a really good point. And it's why I think it's better to discuss "what should governments do?", rather than "what are you going to do?"Huskaris said:I think we are very good at saying what other people should be doing, and not very good at doing it ourselves.5 -
Thanks for the quick response. Maybe there's something that I don't get, but I think we can and we should divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint, because it gives a false picture. That 25% figure makes it look like those people are just jollying their way through gallons of oil when that may not be the case at all. Those emissions might be perfectly legitimate bi-products of the work they are doing and we have no way of judging whether they are reasonable or not if it's all lumped in with emissions made by the same people as consumers. Business emissions need to be attributable to the business, not to the individuals who own or control it.Chizz said:Stig said:
Chizz, does 'responsible for' mean that it is their personal usage, or does that mean that they own/control businesses responsible for that quarter. If it's the former then there really ought to be some controls over their energy usage. If it's the latter, then that's an understandable consequence of the positions they hold in society.Chizz said:Just 1% of the world’s population was responsible for almost a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions growth over 1990-2019.
Given this information, anyone thinking that "poorer people are more likely to pollute the planet because their primary focus is quite rightly on feeding themselves and their children, rather than having environmental concerns" ought to reconsider their viewpoint.Humans release billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. However, these emissions are disproportionately produced by wealthier people, who typically live more carbon-intensive lifestyles.
When assessing individual contributions to global warming, researchers often focus on emissions from goods and services that people consume. This study presents an update to this method by also including the emissions from a person’s investments in their greenhouse gas footprint. This allows the study to more accurately represent the emissions of the wealthy – which largely come from investments. It assesses three components of a person’s greenhouse gas footprint. The first is private consumption – made up of emissions from the direct use of fuel and emissions embedded into goods and services. The second includes emissions from government spending in that person’s country – such as government administration, public roads or defence.
We can't divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint. That absolves everyone of the responsibility for GHG emissions from business. This study enables an equitable measure, showing both the direct consumption carbon costs and the effects of private businesses and government services.
0 -
valleynick66 said:
Make all public transport minimal cost or free and 24x 7 and tax private cars very heavily.Chizz said:
No, I am more interested in what other posters think should be done, than what they actually do.blackpool72 said:
Yet you are the one who always asks certain posters what they would do.Chizz said:
This is a really good point. And it's why I think it's better to discuss "what should governments do?", rather than "what are you going to do?"Huskaris said:I think we are very good at saying what other people should be doing, and not very good at doing it ourselves.
Might work in big cities but not in rural communities.
2 -
In the past year, renewables supplied 37.5% though, which exceeded that from fossil fuels. It's winter, the time when we burn most fossil fuels.cafcnick1992 said:
Right, so they're keeping energy cheap by developing renewable methods alongside existing, proven methods of power generation.arthur said:
China makes a huge proportion of the worlds products so some of those emissions are shared. They have over 30% of the worlds solar production and harness more wind than any other country. They are increasing all of these quicker than any other country too, so although their carbon emissions are very high, they are taking green power poruction seriously.queensland_addick said:
Exactly the point I was making earlier. People prioritise, especially poorer people with limited resources, and most people put those things above, above cutting their Carbon footprint.Jessie said:I must say I admire all you people's effort in this. This is the hottest Not Sports Related thread. I don't see anyone SO enthusiastic about this topic in the place where I am. Everyone is worrying about their jobs, income, health, kids' education, all sorts of bills, etc. Basically financial survival issues. Totally two different worlds....
I believe that China is responsible for around 30% of Global emissions. So if the Chinese are not enthusiastic about the topic, that makes it incredibly difficult for the rest of the world to make much progress.
Why can't we do that? Why are we putting so much reliance on wind and solar energy that, as of 2025, isn't up to it?
As I type this, we're importing nearly 10% of our energy needs, whilst renewables contribute a miserable 15%.1 -
I agree and that’s also my point. You need to improve public transport as well not solely make it free.bobmunro said:valleynick66 said:
Make all public transport minimal cost or free and 24x 7 and tax private cars very heavily.Chizz said:
No, I am more interested in what other posters think should be done, than what they actually do.blackpool72 said:
Yet you are the one who always asks certain posters what they would do.Chizz said:
This is a really good point. And it's why I think it's better to discuss "what should governments do?", rather than "what are you going to do?"Huskaris said:I think we are very good at saying what other people should be doing, and not very good at doing it ourselves.
Might work in big cities but not in rural communities.But even if you only did it in urban areas it would be a start.2 -
I kind of like the gist of this, but even then you have to be careful not to have unintended consequences. In city environments, public transport is (or at least should be) highly efficient because so many people can use the same routes. In rural environments public transport is far less efficient than private transport because the journeys made are so disparate, irregular and fewer in number . The carbon footprint of running free 24X7 public transport out in the countryside would be appalling, far better to let the sparser population do its own thing transport wise. That's not to say that rural public transport shouldn't be improved or that private transport shouldn't be taxed, but I think it needs a proper strategy that maximises the benefit of public and private transport, prioritising the public where appropriate rather than as a catch all response.valleynick66 said:
Make all public transport minimal cost or free and 24x 7 and tax private cars very heavily.Chizz said:
No, I am more interested in what other posters think should be done, than what they actually do.blackpool72 said:
Yet you are the one who always asks certain posters what they would do.Chizz said:
This is a really good point. And it's why I think it's better to discuss "what should governments do?", rather than "what are you going to do?"Huskaris said:I think we are very good at saying what other people should be doing, and not very good at doing it ourselves.0 -
Ha ha, you said it so much more simply than me.bobmunro said:valleynick66 said:
Make all public transport minimal cost or free and 24x 7 and tax private cars very heavily.Chizz said:
No, I am more interested in what other posters think should be done, than what they actually do.blackpool72 said:
Yet you are the one who always asks certain posters what they would do.Chizz said:
This is a really good point. And it's why I think it's better to discuss "what should governments do?", rather than "what are you going to do?"Huskaris said:I think we are very good at saying what other people should be doing, and not very good at doing it ourselves.
Might work in big cities but not in rural communities.0 -
Indeed Stig. The super rich are generally huge employers.Stig said:
Thanks for the quick response. Maybe there's something that I don't get, but I think we can and we should divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint, because it gives a false picture. That 25% figure makes it look like those people are just jollying their way through gallons of oil when that may not be the case at all. Those emissions might be perfectly legitimate bi-products of the work they are doing and we have no way of judging whether they are reasonable or not if it's all lumped in with emissions made by the same people as consumers. Business emissions need to be attributable to the business, not to the individuals who own or control it.Chizz said:Stig said:
Chizz, does 'responsible for' mean that it is their personal usage, or does that mean that they own/control businesses responsible for that quarter. If it's the former then there really ought to be some controls over their energy usage. If it's the latter, then that's an understandable consequence of the positions they hold in society.Chizz said:Just 1% of the world’s population was responsible for almost a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions growth over 1990-2019.
Given this information, anyone thinking that "poorer people are more likely to pollute the planet because their primary focus is quite rightly on feeding themselves and their children, rather than having environmental concerns" ought to reconsider their viewpoint.Humans release billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. However, these emissions are disproportionately produced by wealthier people, who typically live more carbon-intensive lifestyles.
When assessing individual contributions to global warming, researchers often focus on emissions from goods and services that people consume. This study presents an update to this method by also including the emissions from a person’s investments in their greenhouse gas footprint. This allows the study to more accurately represent the emissions of the wealthy – which largely come from investments. It assesses three components of a person’s greenhouse gas footprint. The first is private consumption – made up of emissions from the direct use of fuel and emissions embedded into goods and services. The second includes emissions from government spending in that person’s country – such as government administration, public roads or defence.
We can't divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint. That absolves everyone of the responsibility for GHG emissions from business. This study enables an equitable measure, showing both the direct consumption carbon costs and the effects of private businesses and government services.
I think this is the study being referred to:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/top-1-of-emitters-caused-almost-a-quarter-of-global-emissions-since-1990/
You will notice that a correction had to be made because it originally stated "25% of global emissions", rather than "25% GROWTH in global emissions" which would have been incredibly misleading!
1
