Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Climate Emergency
Comments
-
I think the changes to the environment have gone too far though. We have destroyed the main organic component that has naturally been our safeguard against climate change. The Rain Forests. I believe whatever we’re doing now is like pissing in the wind. Depressing I know. I’m not sure to what degree it’s going to pan out in the future but we have created this for ourselves.0
-
I respectfully completely disagree. The cost of the emissions of a business ought to be apportioned to the owners of that business. Otherwise, no-one can be held accountable.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.
4 -
Yes this sounds like an election-winning proposal. Definitely won't lead to a mass exodus of people to foreign nations.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 -
Try as I can, I cannot fathom how 1% of the population taking maybe 50 flights a year in a private jet (rather than using a commercial aircraft) maybe using their super yacht a few times a year, and eating a few more steak's than the average person (maybe Caviar), can have such a massive carbon footprint, equivalent supposedly to 66% of the worlds poorest.
I'm sure they spend a lot more time on the Golf Course, and have more personal massages, but such activities are pretty harmless.
What exactly are they doing different to the average human being on a daily basis ?
Last I read, Musk lead quite a frugal existence, as does Warren Buffet and Charlie Munger (Before he died obviously)
Not all billionaires live extravagant lives.1 -
Yes!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 -
Genuinely this time lol, who fucking funds youqueensland_addick said:Try as I can, I cannot fathom how 1% of the population taking maybe 50 flights a year in a private jet (rather than using a commercial aircraft) maybe using their super yacht a few times a year, and eating a few more steak's than the average person (maybe Caviar), can have such a massive carbon footprint, equivalent supposedly to 66% of the worlds poorest.
I'm sure they spend a lot more time on the Golf Course, and have more personal massages, but such activities are pretty harmless.
What exactly are they doing different to the average human being on a daily basis ?
Last I read, Musk lead quite a frugal existence, as does Warren Buffet and Charlie Munger (Before he died obviously)
Not all billionaires live extravagant lives.4 -
Not "incredibly" misleading. The per capita emissions of the top 1% grew by 26%; since 1990, the bottom 50% of the world population has been responsible for only 16% of all emissions growth, whereas the top 1% has been responsible for 23% of the total.queensland_addick said:
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!2 -
Soya beans are not the answer.cantersaddick said:
In that same period meat consumption per person has grown massively. Given we can't easily reverse population growth why don't we try and reverse the overconsuption of meat?blackpool72 said:
That's exactly what we are doing.Leuth said:
That's a good idea. But, and hear me out here, how about instead of planting trees, we keep chopping trees down, and replacing them with cattle farms?ken_shabby said:Plant trees. Millions of them. It would take a while to kick in, but trees eat CO2.
There is a quote from Napoleon when he became emperor. He said he didn't want his troops marching round France in the baking sun, and demanded a tree planting programme. One of his generals, agast, pointed out it would take years for the trees to grow sufficiently to provide shade for the troops, to which Napoleon replied 'all the more reason to start immediately.'
We need a swathe of new policies to halt climate change, but trees could be planted from tomorrow.
To support the world's population that has doubled over the last 50 years.
I know you don't like this response but that's the reality.
https://www.wwf.org.uk/myfootprint/challenges/expansion-soy-bean-farms-has-led-vast-areas-deforestation-and-destruction
1 -
Reducing the demand for Palm Oil would help. I'm sure the Rainforests could start to regenerate fairly quickly if they were allowed to.Rob said:I think the changes to the environment have gone too far though. We have destroyed the main organic component that has naturally been our safeguard against climate change. The Rain Forests. I believe whatever we’re doing now is like pissing in the wind. Depressing I know. I’m not sure to what degree it’s going to pan out in the future but we have created this for ourselves.2 -
I know socialists love to blame the rich, but how can one man, Elon Musk have all the emissions produced by, Tesla, Starlink, Twitter etc, attributed to him personally, and how do you want him personally to be "held accountable" ?Chizz said:
I respectfully completely disagree. The cost of the emissions of a business ought to be apportioned to the owners of that business. Otherwise, no-one can be held accountable.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.
Imprisonment, close down his companies?
1 - Sponsored links:
-
Proportionally tax those companies. It’s quite simplequeensland_addick said:
I know socialists love to blame the rich, but how can one man, Elon Musk have all the emissions produced by, Tesla, Starlink, Twitter etc, attributed to him personally, and how do you want him personally to be "held accountable" ?Chizz said:
I respectfully completely disagree. The cost of the emissions of a business ought to be apportioned to the owners of that business. Otherwise, no-one can be held accountable.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.
Imprisonment, close down his companies?5 -
If you are referring to the report from the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), the richest 1% emit 16% of global emissions, which is very different to 25%.Chizz said:
Not "incredibly" misleading. The per capita emissions of the top 1% grew by 26%; since 1990, the bottom 50% of the world population has been responsible for only 16% of all emissions growth, whereas the top 1% has been responsible for 23% of the total.queensland_addick said:
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!
And that 16% comprises emissions from their investments, not just their personal emissions.
To say that the Super rich are personally responsible for 25% of global emissions is devious, wrong and misleading.
1 -
Obviously, they're not. But I am sure you don't need me to explain that to you.queensland_addick said:
I know socialists love to blame the rich, but how can one man, Elon Musk have all the emissions produced by, Tesla, Starlink, Twitter etc, attributed to him personally, and how do you want him personally to be "held accountable" ?Chizz said:
I respectfully completely disagree. The cost of the emissions of a business ought to be apportioned to the owners of that business. Otherwise, no-one can be held accountable.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.
Imprisonment, close down his companies?
The academic study was put together to cover all GHG emissions, whether they were caused individually, created as a by-product of government services or as a result of businesses which could not be attributed to individual consumers. So, ownership of carbon-emitting businesses were taken into account when compiling the study.
Is it right that Teslas, produced by a a company owned by an individual are apportioned equitably between those that buy and use them and those that own the business that creates them? Lucas Chancel, the Associate Professor at Sciences Po, Co-Director of the World Inequality Lab at the Paris School of Economics and Senior advisor at the European Tax Observatory thinks it's useful, interesting, informative information seems to think so. I wouldn't argue with him.
I think people who cause the most environmental damage should be accountable. And they should be encouraged - if necessary by taxation - to mitigate the effects of their own, attributed emissions.
Elon Musk does this - to an extent - with the carbon credits he sells, making up a substantial portion of Tesla's profits. Perhaps you think no-one should be held accountable for the greenhouse gas emissions their companies cause.2 -
Also, that study doesn't really differentiate between the "rich" and others, inasmuch as it differentiates between the "filthy" and others. Although the Muskbot happens to be filthy rich of course.
2 -
As has been said no solution can be perfect. But if you apply the 80/20 rule it is a valid suggestion.Stig said:
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.It’s more meaningful than cutting my meat consumption a few days a week I’d suggest.We are happy to have the congestion charge- it’s an extension of that in simple terms but with the carrot of a viable public transport alternative.Anyway the question was posed and I offered an answer 🙂2 -
It’s not or shouldn’t be about winning votes.cafcnick1992 said:
Yes this sounds like an election-winning proposal. Definitely won't lead to a mass exodus of people to foreign nations.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.It worked for Khan in London seemingly without the public transport improvements.1 -
Oh, and here's the killer.Chizz said:
Not "incredibly" misleading. The per capita emissions of the top 1% grew by 26%; since 1990, the bottom 50% of the world population has been responsible for only 16% of all emissions growth, whereas the top 1% has been responsible for 23% of the total.queensland_addick said:
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!
That "world's richest 1%" or 77 million rich people, (Your hated Billionaires) is not just Billionaires !
No, it includes anyone earning over £112,500 per year, which I would imagine actually includes some posters on here.
These are the people responsible for 16% of global emissions.
Don't believe me?
It's right here in yer actual Guardian 🤣
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/20/richest-1-account-for-more-carbon-emissions-than-poorest-66-report-says
"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 – enough to cause more than a million excess deaths due to heat, according to the report."2 -
Not what you said to Stig earlier though was it !Chizz said:
Obviously, they're not. But I am sure you don't need me to explain that to you.queensland_addick said:
I know socialists love to blame the rich, but how can one man, Elon Musk have all the emissions produced by, Tesla, Starlink, Twitter etc, attributed to him personally, and how do you want him personally to be "held accountable" ?Chizz said:
I respectfully completely disagree. The cost of the emissions of a business ought to be apportioned to the owners of that business. Otherwise, no-one can be held accountable.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.
Imprisonment, close down his companies?
The academic study was put together to cover all GHG emissions, whether they were caused individually, created as a by-product of government services or as a result of businesses which could not be attributed to individual consumers. So, ownership of carbon-emitting businesses were taken into account when compiling the study.
Is it right that Teslas, produced by a a company owned by an individual are apportioned equitably between those that buy and use them and those that own the business that creates them? Lucas Chancel, the Associate Professor at Sciences Po, Co-Director of the World Inequality Lab at the Paris School of Economics and Senior advisor at the European Tax Observatory thinks it's useful, interesting, informative information seems to think so. I wouldn't argue with him.
I think people who cause the most environmental damage should be accountable. And they should be encouraged - if necessary by taxation - to mitigate the effects of their own, attributed emissions.
Elon Musk does this - to an extent - with the carbon credits he sells, making up a substantial portion of Tesla's profits. Perhaps you think no-one should be held accountable for the greenhouse gas emissions their companies cause.
Quote
"The cost of the emissions of a business ought to be apportioned to the owners of that business. Otherwise, no-one can be held accountable"3 -
Grow up manLeuth said:
Genuinely this time lol, who fucking funds youqueensland_addick said:Try as I can, I cannot fathom how 1% of the population taking maybe 50 flights a year in a private jet (rather than using a commercial aircraft) maybe using their super yacht a few times a year, and eating a few more steak's than the average person (maybe Caviar), can have such a massive carbon footprint, equivalent supposedly to 66% of the worlds poorest.
I'm sure they spend a lot more time on the Golf Course, and have more personal massages, but such activities are pretty harmless.
What exactly are they doing different to the average human being on a daily basis ?
Last I read, Musk lead quite a frugal existence, as does Warren Buffet and Charlie Munger (Before he died obviously)
Not all billionaires live extravagant lives.4 -
Again discussing actions that can be taken on a thread for discussion is completely fine. No more unrealistic than people posting their wants on the transfer rumours thread. Also conversations on whatever forum have the ability to help people form opinions and so collective pressure may grow through either voting or consumption decisions. So yes it's still important to discuss.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?
Again many people on here have talked about their individual actions but the shouldn't need to in order to discuss something on an Internet forum.
Also point of fact. Dishwashers use less water and energy than washing by hand as long as they are 80% full.0 - Sponsored links:
-
QA 2 days ago "stop making it about sides" and "everyone's making it political"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.
QA today just as the thread was back on track: long rambling post about sides, makes it political.4 -
Ooopppsss lol.. Why are so many people jealous and nasty towards individuals particularly self made millionaires in this country. We seem to have a habit of producing them. Particularly on one side of the divide.queensland_addick said:
Not what you said to Stig earlier though was it !Chizz said:
Obviously, they're not. But I am sure you don't need me to explain that to you.queensland_addick said:
I know socialists love to blame the rich, but how can one man, Elon Musk have all the emissions produced by, Tesla, Starlink, Twitter etc, attributed to him personally, and how do you want him personally to be "held accountable" ?Chizz said:
I respectfully completely disagree. The cost of the emissions of a business ought to be apportioned to the owners of that business. Otherwise, no-one can be held accountable.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.
Imprisonment, close down his companies?
The academic study was put together to cover all GHG emissions, whether they were caused individually, created as a by-product of government services or as a result of businesses which could not be attributed to individual consumers. So, ownership of carbon-emitting businesses were taken into account when compiling the study.
Is it right that Teslas, produced by a a company owned by an individual are apportioned equitably between those that buy and use them and those that own the business that creates them? Lucas Chancel, the Associate Professor at Sciences Po, Co-Director of the World Inequality Lab at the Paris School of Economics and Senior advisor at the European Tax Observatory thinks it's useful, interesting, informative information seems to think so. I wouldn't argue with him.
I think people who cause the most environmental damage should be accountable. And they should be encouraged - if necessary by taxation - to mitigate the effects of their own, attributed emissions.
Elon Musk does this - to an extent - with the carbon credits he sells, making up a substantial portion of Tesla's profits. Perhaps you think no-one should be held accountable for the greenhouse gas emissions their companies cause.
Quote
"The cost of the emissions of a business ought to be apportioned to the owners of that business. Otherwise, no-one can be held accountable"
Its like some of our sportsmen who become prolific at their sport somehow upset a minority of the population. Very weird behaviour.5 -
Wrong person. Think you're referring to a Chippy post.cantersaddick said:
QA 2 days ago "stop making it about sides"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.
QA today: long rambling post about sides.1 -
Completely agree. I saw an interview with a climate scientist recently who was saying its never "too late" and no action is too small. Every 0.01 degree on temperature rises prevented is thousands of lives saved.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.2 -
Hot water requires energy though.Stu_of_Kunming said:
As my hands don't require any electric at all and your washing machine does, we'll just put you in the 'let others make the changes' column.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?
Keep preaching and putting others down though.
It's literally a well estabilshed fact that any dishwasher that conforms to European standards uses less water and energy than washing by hand.0 -
Terrible twins mate.queensland_addick said:
Wrong person. Think you're referring to a Chippy post.cantersaddick said:
QA 2 days ago "stop making it about sides"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.
QA today: long rambling post about sides.2 -
Don't think you've been reading the thread then.Huskaris said:I think we are very good at saying what other people should be doing, and not very good at doing it ourselves.
Even if it was true its a bullshit point that adds nothing to the conversation.3 -
Can you point me to this?cantersaddick said:
Again discussing actions that can be taken on a thread for discussion is completely fine. No more unrealistic than people posting their wants on the transfer rumours thread. Also conversations on whatever forum have the ability to help people form opinions and so collective pressure may grow through either voting or consumption decisions. So yes it's still important to discuss.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?
Again many people on here have talked about their individual actions but the shouldn't need to in order to discuss something on an Internet forum.
Also point of fact. Dishwashers use less water and energy than washing by hand as long as they are 80% full.
I find this hard to equate and need convincing we are comparing like with like.1 -
There is massive scope for a green driven economic boom through investment in this the kind of boom that would actually make everyone better off. Unfortunately the last 14 years of the Tories and particularly the last 4 where they pulled back on every bit of green investment (including in a public, private, academia partnership researching solid state batteries that would literally be revolutionary) has pulled us out the race for that. China is racing ahead and we will be slave to them for the next 100 years paying for every bit of technology. The solid state battery research has been relocated to there.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.2 -
I genuinely have no idea what you're talking about.queensland_addick said:
Not what you said to Stig earlier though was it !Chizz said:
Obviously, they're not. But I am sure you don't need me to explain that to you.queensland_addick said:
I know socialists love to blame the rich, but how can one man, Elon Musk have all the emissions produced by, Tesla, Starlink, Twitter etc, attributed to him personally, and how do you want him personally to be "held accountable" ?Chizz said:
I respectfully completely disagree. The cost of the emissions of a business ought to be apportioned to the owners of that business. Otherwise, no-one can be held accountable.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.
Imprisonment, close down his companies?
The academic study was put together to cover all GHG emissions, whether they were caused individually, created as a by-product of government services or as a result of businesses which could not be attributed to individual consumers. So, ownership of carbon-emitting businesses were taken into account when compiling the study.
Is it right that Teslas, produced by a a company owned by an individual are apportioned equitably between those that buy and use them and those that own the business that creates them? Lucas Chancel, the Associate Professor at Sciences Po, Co-Director of the World Inequality Lab at the Paris School of Economics and Senior advisor at the European Tax Observatory thinks it's useful, interesting, informative information seems to think so. I wouldn't argue with him.
I think people who cause the most environmental damage should be accountable. And they should be encouraged - if necessary by taxation - to mitigate the effects of their own, attributed emissions.
Elon Musk does this - to an extent - with the carbon credits he sells, making up a substantial portion of Tesla's profits. Perhaps you think no-one should be held accountable for the greenhouse gas emissions their companies cause.
Quote
"The cost of the emissions of a business ought to be apportioned to the owners of that business. Otherwise, no-one can be held accountable"
I told Stig I think owners of businesses that emit the most greenhouse gases should be held accountable. And, in answer to your question about whether Elon Musk should be imprisoned, I said I think people who cause the most environmental damage should be held accountable.
If you can show me where there's an inconsistency, I'll explain it to you.3
