Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Climate Emergency
Comments
-
The 1% refers to the most polluting percentile. It's not the richest 1%, it's the percentile that emits the most GHG. I can't make that any clearer.queensland_addick said:
So your "top 1%" isn't referring to the Super Rich? Righto.Chizz said:
You're pointing to a sentence that doesn't contain either the words Super rich or the figure 25%. I think you ought to stop and take a breath right now.queensland_addick said:
Well for starters, you reckoned that it was 23% right here:Chizz said:
No, I am not referring to a report from the Stockholm Environment Institure (SEI). Had I be doing so, I may well have put a link to the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). Instead, I was referring to Lucas Chancel's report Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019, published on 29 September 2022. That's why my post had a link to to Lucas Chancel's report Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019, published on 29 September 2022.queensland_addick said:
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 to Lucas Chancel's report Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019, published on 29 September 2022% 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.
I don't know where you get the line "the Super rich are personally responsible for 25% of global emissions". And, frankly, I don't really care.
"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."
And where did you get the 23% from? When it's only 16%.
You're only about 44% off target 🤣🤣
Why not just for once admit that you're wrong? just as you were wrong about so many things relating to the current US President for so many years, over on the HOC Boards, or have the courage and honesty to admit that I was ultimately proved to have been correct?
The 23% comes from the link in the report. Click the link and it takes you directly to the place in the report extract that explains the 23%. I can't make that any clearer, either.
That link also, for what it's worth, takes you to the contact details of the report's author, to whom I'd suggest you address any more queries you have regarding the parts of the information you don't understand.2 -
No-one has ever suggested those companies should be dissolved, on this thread.queensland_addick said:
Does the same answer apply to Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Gates and all the other billionaires who provide livings for thousands of people?Chizz said:
Both, of course! It's great he employs lots of people and he should be given tax breaks to do so more. But it would be even better if he could reduce his companies' carbon footprints - and he should have some incentive to do that too.blackpool72 said:
Richard Branson employes over 70k people world wide.Chizz said:
I disagree. If one man owns, outright, a business that pours GHGs into the atmosphere, day and night, who is responsible? The owner? Or no-one?Stig said:
The business itself should be accountable. As should the individuals for their own 'personal' emissions. Jumbling the figures up just muddies the waters.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.
There are probably hundreds of thousands more who support and supply his empire.
So is he a good man for giving hundreds of thousands of people a living or a bad man because of his environmental footprint
Would you rather all their numerous Carbon Emitting companies be dissolved and their employees placed on welfare to be looked after by the Tax Payer?
That would be wonderful for the environment wouldn't it ?2 -
If he owns the businesses, he should be accountable.Stig said:
As you like scenarios, how about this one? Suppose there's a businessperson who owns five businesses, they are all of equal size and so our businessperson dedicates one day a week to overseeing each one. In fact, let's make it more interesting and say that they've just acquired a sixth business, but they don't spend any time on that one because it represents just 2% of their wealth. Now, what if those six businesses have different carbon footprints? Supposing five of those businesses are exemplary and one is absolutely awful? What if they are businesses in different sectors and it would be reasonable to expect different levels of emission? What if those businesses have different histories, different geographies, different life stages? What if some of those businesses are doing cutting edge stuff to reduce emissions that we should learn from and replicate? What some of those businesses are truly awful and should be penalised or even shut down? What if some could, with a little encouragement, make significant savings? How on earth would we answer those questions if the only data we have his lumped together under the name of one person.Chizz said:
And, in that scenario, if the owner exercises control and closes the business, all the greenhouse gas emissions are ended. He is responsible for that GHG emission reduction. In the same way he is responsible for the GHG emissions up to that point.Stig said:
The business as a legal entity.Chizz said:
I disagree. If one man owns, outright, a business that pours GHGs into the atmosphere, day and night, who is responsible? The owner? Or no-one?Stig said:
The business itself should be accountable. As should the individuals for their own 'personal' emissions. Jumbling the figures up just muddies the waters.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.
If you view the owned business as a disparate, self-governing, external entity that acts entirely independently of its owners, then I will respectfully disagree. Someone - or some people - are responsible for the actions of every business; and should be accountable thereof. In my opinion.
As a general principle of good data management, you should always, keep your data as granular as possible. You can always aggregate a copy later, if that will be more useful for analysing, but it's a one way street; You can easily aggregate granular data, but it's incredibly difficult to disaggregate amalgamated data (one you've mixed the cake, you can't get the eggs out). I want to know how each of those six businesses are doing, not have all their information lumped together under a single name.1 -
And she would be - via the businesses.Chizz said:
If he owns the businesses, he should be accountable.Stig said:
As you like scenarios, how about this one? Suppose there's a businessperson who owns five businesses, they are all of equal size and so our businessperson dedicates one day a week to overseeing each one. In fact, let's make it more interesting and say that they've just acquired a sixth business, but they don't spend any time on that one because it represents just 2% of their wealth. Now, what if those six businesses have different carbon footprints? Supposing five of those businesses are exemplary and one is absolutely awful? What if they are businesses in different sectors and it would be reasonable to expect different levels of emission? What if those businesses have different histories, different geographies, different life stages? What if some of those businesses are doing cutting edge stuff to reduce emissions that we should learn from and replicate? What some of those businesses are truly awful and should be penalised or even shut down? What if some could, with a little encouragement, make significant savings? How on earth would we answer those questions if the only data we have his lumped together under the name of one person.Chizz said:
And, in that scenario, if the owner exercises control and closes the business, all the greenhouse gas emissions are ended. He is responsible for that GHG emission reduction. In the same way he is responsible for the GHG emissions up to that point.Stig said:
The business as a legal entity.Chizz said:
I disagree. If one man owns, outright, a business that pours GHGs into the atmosphere, day and night, who is responsible? The owner? Or no-one?Stig said:
The business itself should be accountable. As should the individuals for their own 'personal' emissions. Jumbling the figures up just muddies the waters.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.
If you view the owned business as a disparate, self-governing, external entity that acts entirely independently of its owners, then I will respectfully disagree. Someone - or some people - are responsible for the actions of every business; and should be accountable thereof. In my opinion.
As a general principle of good data management, you should always, keep your data as granular as possible. You can always aggregate a copy later, if that will be more useful for analysing, but it's a one way street; You can easily aggregate granular data, but it's incredibly difficult to disaggregate amalgamated data (one you've mixed the cake, you can't get the eggs out). I want to know how each of those six businesses are doing, not have all their information lumped together under a single name.0 -
We're very close to agreement!Stig said:
And she would be - via the businesses.Chizz said:
If he owns the businesses, he should be accountable.Stig said:
As you like scenarios, how about this one? Suppose there's a businessperson who owns five businesses, they are all of equal size and so our businessperson dedicates one day a week to overseeing each one. In fact, let's make it more interesting and say that they've just acquired a sixth business, but they don't spend any time on that one because it represents just 2% of their wealth. Now, what if those six businesses have different carbon footprints? Supposing five of those businesses are exemplary and one is absolutely awful? What if they are businesses in different sectors and it would be reasonable to expect different levels of emission? What if those businesses have different histories, different geographies, different life stages? What if some of those businesses are doing cutting edge stuff to reduce emissions that we should learn from and replicate? What some of those businesses are truly awful and should be penalised or even shut down? What if some could, with a little encouragement, make significant savings? How on earth would we answer those questions if the only data we have his lumped together under the name of one person.Chizz said:
And, in that scenario, if the owner exercises control and closes the business, all the greenhouse gas emissions are ended. He is responsible for that GHG emission reduction. In the same way he is responsible for the GHG emissions up to that point.Stig said:
The business as a legal entity.Chizz said:
I disagree. If one man owns, outright, a business that pours GHGs into the atmosphere, day and night, who is responsible? The owner? Or no-one?Stig said:
The business itself should be accountable. As should the individuals for their own 'personal' emissions. Jumbling the figures up just muddies the waters.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.
If you view the owned business as a disparate, self-governing, external entity that acts entirely independently of its owners, then I will respectfully disagree. Someone - or some people - are responsible for the actions of every business; and should be accountable thereof. In my opinion.
As a general principle of good data management, you should always, keep your data as granular as possible. You can always aggregate a copy later, if that will be more useful for analysing, but it's a one way street; You can easily aggregate granular data, but it's incredibly difficult to disaggregate amalgamated data (one you've mixed the cake, you can't get the eggs out). I want to know how each of those six businesses are doing, not have all their information lumped together under a single name.1 -
Sounds like you want your cake and eat it too, and that those pesky billionaires aren't really the ogre's that they have been portrayed to be by so many contributors on this thread.Chizz said:
No-one has ever suggested those companies should be dissolved, on this thread.queensland_addick said:
Does the same answer apply to Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Gates and all the other billionaires who provide livings for thousands of people?Chizz said:
Both, of course! It's great he employs lots of people and he should be given tax breaks to do so more. But it would be even better if he could reduce his companies' carbon footprints - and he should have some incentive to do that too.blackpool72 said:
Richard Branson employes over 70k people world wide.Chizz said:
I disagree. If one man owns, outright, a business that pours GHGs into the atmosphere, day and night, who is responsible? The owner? Or no-one?Stig said:
The business itself should be accountable. As should the individuals for their own 'personal' emissions. Jumbling the figures up just muddies the waters.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.
There are probably hundreds of thousands more who support and supply his empire.
So is he a good man for giving hundreds of thousands of people a living or a bad man because of his environmental footprint
Would you rather all their numerous Carbon Emitting companies be dissolved and their employees placed on welfare to be looked after by the Tax Payer?
That would be wonderful for the environment wouldn't it ?4 -
And as I said also improve.SporadicAddick said:
Come and live in the rural west country. A low wage area with scattered towns and villages, no rail network, and buses on a few strategic routes between the bigger towns.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.
Cars are essential to do anything that isn't walking distance.
1 -
Football starts soon.
Time out everyone3 -
Much as I absolutely hate this myself, it's exactly the same in West Lancs (and indeed, anywhere outside Manchester 'up North'). One of the absolute worst impacts of the last decade of under-investment in the north has been the absence of any strategy on public transport, gutting of budgets related to it and - going back further - deregulation of bus companies.SporadicAddick said:
Come and live in the rural west country. A low wage area with scattered towns and villages, no rail network, and buses on a few strategic routes between the bigger towns.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.
Cars are essential to do anything that isn't walking distance.2 -
We won 2 1blackpool72 said:Football starts soon.
Time out everyone
Carry on sorting out climate change everyone11 - Sponsored links:
-
So, a small tip for those who don't have a dishwasher or, like us, inherited one when we moved here but have never used it - just 2 of us in the house.Chizz said:
If you were only referring to washing dishes in cold water, then you'd have a point. But heating water to wash dishes uses more energy than heating water in a well-insulated, full washing machine. Either way, washing dishes by hand uses more water than a dishwasher.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.
Absolutely not preaching - just adding a bit of clarification. Some people think that stopping the use of dishwashers would ameliorate the effects of fossil fuel burning. I don't think it would.
Boil the kettle with more water than needed for 2 cups of tea, and pour the remaining into a large old fashioned flask. Ensure the top is tightened well.
Ta da !
A full flask of very hot water for the daily dish washing by hand ( Mr F's !)6 -
But you are ignoring the carbon footprint of the manufacturing process for the kettle, which was probably made in China and shipped on a dirty diesel cargo ship half way around the world.Fanny Fanackapan said:
So, a small tip for those who don't have a dishwasher or, like us, inherited one when we moved here but have never used it - just 2 of us in the house.Chizz said:
If you were only referring to washing dishes in cold water, then you'd have a point. But heating water to wash dishes uses more energy than heating water in a well-insulated, full washing machine. Either way, washing dishes by hand uses more water than a dishwasher.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.
Absolutely not preaching - just adding a bit of clarification. Some people think that stopping the use of dishwashers would ameliorate the effects of fossil fuel burning. I don't think it would.
Boil the kettle with more water than needed for 2 cups of tea, and pour the remaining into a large old fashioned flask. Ensure the top is tightened well.
Ta da !
A full flask of very hot water for the daily dish washing by hand ( Mr F's !)
Do your washing up in a river like every other conscientious comrade FFS.9 -
You'd have buses serving routes that would be 99% empty, funded by the taxpayer, that would never adequately serve the need of the person wanting to get from A to J.Siv_in_Norfolk said:
We'd have to imagine it with extensive and regular buses linking towns/villages up.SporadicAddick said:
Come and live in the rural west country. A low wage area with scattered towns and villages, no rail network, and buses on a few strategic routes between the bigger towns.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.
Cars are essential to do anything that isn't walking distance.
We are fortunate, of course, that a move to mass free public transport and penalising taxes on private cars is pie in the sky nonsense, and therefore we can continue to get from A to J quickly and efficiently in our cars.1 -
And for anyone with arthritic hands who find it painful wringing out your undies, go to your local hardware store and buy yourself a decent mangle.Fanny Fanackapan said:
So, a small tip for those who don't have a dishwasher or, like us, inherited one when we moved here but have never used it - just 2 of us in the house.Chizz said:
If you were only referring to washing dishes in cold water, then you'd have a point. But heating water to wash dishes uses more energy than heating water in a well-insulated, full washing machine. Either way, washing dishes by hand uses more water than a dishwasher.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.
Absolutely not preaching - just adding a bit of clarification. Some people think that stopping the use of dishwashers would ameliorate the effects of fossil fuel burning. I don't think it would.
Boil the kettle with more water than needed for 2 cups of tea, and pour the remaining into a large old fashioned flask. Ensure the top is tightened well.
Ta da !
A full flask of very hot water for the daily dish washing by hand ( Mr F's !)
Do not under any circumstances use the tumble dryer.1 -
You could never improve to a level that would remove the need for regular car travel in an extensive rural area. That's a fact that may only be clear to people that live in extensive rural areas.valleynick66 said:
And as I said also improve.SporadicAddick said:
Come and live in the rural west country. A low wage area with scattered towns and villages, no rail network, and buses on a few strategic routes between the bigger towns.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.
Cars are essential to do anything that isn't walking distance.0 -
We don't have a dishwasher because it's a rented property. As there are only 2 of us we put any dirty dishes next to the sink and wash up once a day. We use a washing up bowl in the sink which reduces the amount of water needed.Fanny Fanackapan said:
So, a small tip for those who don't have a dishwasher or, like us, inherited one when we moved here but have never used it - just 2 of us in the house.Chizz said:
If you were only referring to washing dishes in cold water, then you'd have a point. But heating water to wash dishes uses more energy than heating water in a well-insulated, full washing machine. Either way, washing dishes by hand uses more water than a dishwasher.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.
Absolutely not preaching - just adding a bit of clarification. Some people think that stopping the use of dishwashers would ameliorate the effects of fossil fuel burning. I don't think it would.
Boil the kettle with more water than needed for 2 cups of tea, and pour the remaining into a large old fashioned flask. Ensure the top is tightened well.
Ta da !
A full flask of very hot water for the daily dish washing by hand ( Mr F's !)1 -
I don't flush the toilet if it's just wee.
Looking forward to other fascinating anecdotes about lifer's domestic approach to mundane household chores and ablutions.7 -
Quote:Chizz said:
The 1% refers to the most polluting percentile. It's not the richest 1%, it's the percentile that emits the most GHG. I can't make that any clearer.queensland_addick said:
So your "top 1%" isn't referring to the Super Rich? Righto.Chizz said:
You're pointing to a sentence that doesn't contain either the words Super rich or the figure 25%. I think you ought to stop and take a breath right now.queensland_addick said:
Well for starters, you reckoned that it was 23% right here:Chizz said:
No, I am not referring to a report from the Stockholm Environment Institure (SEI). Had I be doing so, I may well have put a link to the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). Instead, I was referring to Lucas Chancel's report Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019, published on 29 September 2022. That's why my post had a link to to Lucas Chancel's report Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019, published on 29 September 2022.queensland_addick said:
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 to Lucas Chancel's report Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019, published on 29 September 2022% 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.
I don't know where you get the line "the Super rich are personally responsible for 25% of global emissions". And, frankly, I don't really care.
"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."
And where did you get the 23% from? When it's only 16%.
You're only about 44% off target 🤣🤣
Why not just for once admit that you're wrong? just as you were wrong about so many things relating to the current US President for so many years, over on the HOC Boards, or have the courage and honesty to admit that I was ultimately proved to have been correct?
The 23% comes from the link in the report. Click the link and it takes you directly to the place in the report extract that explains the 23%. I can't make that any clearer, either.
That link also, for what it's worth, takes you to the contact details of the report's author, to whom I'd suggest you address any more queries you have regarding the parts of the information you don't understand.
"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."
So you were referring to a percentile were you, not to people?
Let me explain it to you:
Last I checked "per capita" means "relating to people".
I can't make it any clearer 🤣
0 -
Fortunately, I can. Top 1% = top percentile.queensland_addick said:
Quote:Chizz said:
The 1% refers to the most polluting percentile. It's not the richest 1%, it's the percentile that emits the most GHG. I can't make that any clearer.queensland_addick said:
So your "top 1%" isn't referring to the Super Rich? Righto.Chizz said:
You're pointing to a sentence that doesn't contain either the words Super rich or the figure 25%. I think you ought to stop and take a breath right now.queensland_addick said:
Well for starters, you reckoned that it was 23% right here:Chizz said:
No, I am not referring to a report from the Stockholm Environment Institure (SEI). Had I be doing so, I may well have put a link to the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). Instead, I was referring to Lucas Chancel's report Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019, published on 29 September 2022. That's why my post had a link to to Lucas Chancel's report Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019, published on 29 September 2022.queensland_addick said:
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 to Lucas Chancel's report Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019, published on 29 September 2022% 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.
I don't know where you get the line "the Super rich are personally responsible for 25% of global emissions". And, frankly, I don't really care.
"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."
And where did you get the 23% from? When it's only 16%.
You're only about 44% off target 🤣🤣
Why not just for once admit that you're wrong? just as you were wrong about so many things relating to the current US President for so many years, over on the HOC Boards, or have the courage and honesty to admit that I was ultimately proved to have been correct?
The 23% comes from the link in the report. Click the link and it takes you directly to the place in the report extract that explains the 23%. I can't make that any clearer, either.
That link also, for what it's worth, takes you to the contact details of the report's author, to whom I'd suggest you address any more queries you have regarding the parts of the information you don't understand.
"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."
So you were referring to a percentile were you, not to people?
Let me explain it to you:
Last I checked "per capita" means "relating to people".
I can't make it any clearer 🤣0 -
And the "per capita" relates to?Chizz said:
Fortunately, I can. Top 1% = top percentile.queensland_addick said:
Quote:Chizz said:
The 1% refers to the most polluting percentile. It's not the richest 1%, it's the percentile that emits the most GHG. I can't make that any clearer.queensland_addick said:
So your "top 1%" isn't referring to the Super Rich? Righto.Chizz said:
You're pointing to a sentence that doesn't contain either the words Super rich or the figure 25%. I think you ought to stop and take a breath right now.queensland_addick said:
Well for starters, you reckoned that it was 23% right here:Chizz said:
No, I am not referring to a report from the Stockholm Environment Institure (SEI). Had I be doing so, I may well have put a link to the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). Instead, I was referring to Lucas Chancel's report Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019, published on 29 September 2022. That's why my post had a link to to Lucas Chancel's report Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019, published on 29 September 2022.queensland_addick said:
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 to Lucas Chancel's report Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019, published on 29 September 2022% 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.
I don't know where you get the line "the Super rich are personally responsible for 25% of global emissions". And, frankly, I don't really care.
"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."
And where did you get the 23% from? When it's only 16%.
You're only about 44% off target 🤣🤣
Why not just for once admit that you're wrong? just as you were wrong about so many things relating to the current US President for so many years, over on the HOC Boards, or have the courage and honesty to admit that I was ultimately proved to have been correct?
The 23% comes from the link in the report. Click the link and it takes you directly to the place in the report extract that explains the 23%. I can't make that any clearer, either.
That link also, for what it's worth, takes you to the contact details of the report's author, to whom I'd suggest you address any more queries you have regarding the parts of the information you don't understand.
"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."
So you were referring to a percentile were you, not to people?
Let me explain it to you:
Last I checked "per capita" means "relating to people".
I can't make it any clearer 🤣
Stop making a fool of yourself and just admit you're wrong for once.1 - Sponsored links:
-
It's almost like the constant belittling and taking the piss out of people discussing the efforts they make towards preventing the climate disaster on a thread about discussing that, is if nothing else a bit of a dick move.SporadicAddick said:I don't flush the toilet if it's just wee.
Looking forward to other fascinating anecdotes about lifer's domestic approach to mundane household chores and ablutions.13 -
Some sneer at others efforts to reduce their emissions, but I actually enjoy the challenge of applying what I've learnt about the subject to our daily living. The results are measurable in energy cost savings, which I need to pay for reducing my consumption of meat, having switched to buying only organic and far less often
It's not always as straightforward to know what's best for the environment though. Buying more energy efficient appliances that make our life easier is usually more harmful than not buying one at all if it isn't necessary.
I've seen the dishwasher argument well made on here, but after careful consideration, I won't be buying one because the theoretical calculations used assume a certain pattern of hand washing that varies from household to household. It's interesting though, as are the tips on hand washing more efficiently, but guilt is the last emotion I feel when washing the dishes tbh.
Only when production and distribution processes are carbon neutral would the arguments wholly convince me. Just think what the immediate hit of emissions would be if all ICE car drivers were to order new EV's today. We'd suddenly be using up a chunk of what little carbon budget remains before we reach the point beyond which we might be able to stop our own demise.
Not the planet's, which has been subjected to extremes of temperature way beyond what we're inflicting on it by destabilizing the climate. From fireball to snowball it's endured, and will again. Same can't be said for us.
1 -
SporadicAddick said:
You'd have buses serving routes that would be 99% empty, funded by the taxpayer, that would never adequately serve the need of the person wanting to get from A to J.Siv_in_Norfolk said:
We'd have to imagine it with extensive and regular buses linking towns/villages up.SporadicAddick said:
Come and live in the rural west country. A low wage area with scattered towns and villages, no rail network, and buses on a few strategic routes between the bigger towns.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.
Cars are essential to do anything that isn't walking distance.
We are fortunate, of course, that a move to mass free public transport and penalising taxes on private cars is pie in the sky nonsense, and therefore we can continue to get from A to J quickly and efficiently in our cars.
We used to have a bus service that run from Basingstoke to Tadley via Bramley all Hampshire. It was an hourly service from about 8AM till about 4PM. No-one used it. then it went to a 2 hourly service no-one used it. It now runs about 3 buses a day morning/midday/late afternoon.
Everyone who never used it is now up in arms that it isnt as frequent.
They prefer to drive their Chelsea tractors around town instead.4 -
I can better all that.ME14addick said:
We don't have a dishwasher because it's a rented property. As there are only 2 of us we put any dirty dishes next to the sink and wash up once a day. We use a washing up bowl in the sink which reduces the amount of water needed.Fanny Fanackapan said:
So, a small tip for those who don't have a dishwasher or, like us, inherited one when we moved here but have never used it - just 2 of us in the house.Chizz said:
If you were only referring to washing dishes in cold water, then you'd have a point. But heating water to wash dishes uses more energy than heating water in a well-insulated, full washing machine. Either way, washing dishes by hand uses more water than a dishwasher.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.
Absolutely not preaching - just adding a bit of clarification. Some people think that stopping the use of dishwashers would ameliorate the effects of fossil fuel burning. I don't think it would.
Boil the kettle with more water than needed for 2 cups of tea, and pour the remaining into a large old fashioned flask. Ensure the top is tightened well.
Ta da !
A full flask of very hot water for the daily dish washing by hand ( Mr F's !)
I've found a way of avoiding using the dishwasher, water, detergent and all the effort involved.
I just use disposable plastic plates and crockery and chuck it all in the garbage 😜
Joking of course!
I acquired a nice dishwasher in my new apartment, but have yet to even switch it on.
I try to avoid becoming lazy wherever possible and doing the dirty beer glasses by hand I find to be quite therapeutic, and a source of some of my most profound thoughts.
1 -
You sure it's not the effect of the contents 😉queensland_addick said:
I can better all that.ME14addick said:
We don't have a dishwasher because it's a rented property. As there are only 2 of us we put any dirty dishes next to the sink and wash up once a day. We use a washing up bowl in the sink which reduces the amount of water needed.Fanny Fanackapan said:
So, a small tip for those who don't have a dishwasher or, like us, inherited one when we moved here but have never used it - just 2 of us in the house.Chizz said:
If you were only referring to washing dishes in cold water, then you'd have a point. But heating water to wash dishes uses more energy than heating water in a well-insulated, full washing machine. Either way, washing dishes by hand uses more water than a dishwasher.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.
Absolutely not preaching - just adding a bit of clarification. Some people think that stopping the use of dishwashers would ameliorate the effects of fossil fuel burning. I don't think it would.
Boil the kettle with more water than needed for 2 cups of tea, and pour the remaining into a large old fashioned flask. Ensure the top is tightened well.
Ta da !
A full flask of very hot water for the daily dish washing by hand ( Mr F's !)
I've found a way of avoiding using the dishwasher, water, detergent and all the effort involved.
I just use disposable plastic plates and crockery and chuck it all in the garbage 😜
Joking of course!
I acquired a nice dishwasher in my new apartment, but have yet to even switch it on.
I try to avoid becoming lazy wherever possible and doing the dirty beer glasses by hand I find to be quite therapeutic, and a source of some of my most profound thoughts.0 -
Possibly 😜🤣swordfish said:
You sure it's not the effect of the contents 😉queensland_addick said:
I can better all that.ME14addick said:
We don't have a dishwasher because it's a rented property. As there are only 2 of us we put any dirty dishes next to the sink and wash up once a day. We use a washing up bowl in the sink which reduces the amount of water needed.Fanny Fanackapan said:
So, a small tip for those who don't have a dishwasher or, like us, inherited one when we moved here but have never used it - just 2 of us in the house.Chizz said:
If you were only referring to washing dishes in cold water, then you'd have a point. But heating water to wash dishes uses more energy than heating water in a well-insulated, full washing machine. Either way, washing dishes by hand uses more water than a dishwasher.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.
Absolutely not preaching - just adding a bit of clarification. Some people think that stopping the use of dishwashers would ameliorate the effects of fossil fuel burning. I don't think it would.
Boil the kettle with more water than needed for 2 cups of tea, and pour the remaining into a large old fashioned flask. Ensure the top is tightened well.
Ta da !
A full flask of very hot water for the daily dish washing by hand ( Mr F's !)
I've found a way of avoiding using the dishwasher, water, detergent and all the effort involved.
I just use disposable plastic plates and crockery and chuck it all in the garbage 😜
Joking of course!
I acquired a nice dishwasher in my new apartment, but have yet to even switch it on.
I try to avoid becoming lazy wherever possible and doing the dirty beer glasses by hand I find to be quite therapeutic, and a source of some of my most profound thoughts.0 -
My balls don't work so I can't possibly help with the overpopulation of planet earth... Hooorrraayyyy
I flew to Greece a number of times to have ivf and came home with a baby to help with the overpopulation of planet earth... booooooooooooooooo
3 -
I don't know if you're deliberately misunderstanding the data. If you don't know what percentile or per capita mean, then maybe it's not worth looking at the data.queensland_addick said:
And the "per capita" relates to?Chizz said:
Fortunately, I can. Top 1% = top percentile.queensland_addick said:
Quote:Chizz said:
The 1% refers to the most polluting percentile. It's not the richest 1%, it's the percentile that emits the most GHG. I can't make that any clearer.queensland_addick said:
So your "top 1%" isn't referring to the Super Rich? Righto.Chizz said:
You're pointing to a sentence that doesn't contain either the words Super rich or the figure 25%. I think you ought to stop and take a breath right now.queensland_addick said:
Well for starters, you reckoned that it was 23% right here:Chizz said:
No, I am not referring to a report from the Stockholm Environment Institure (SEI). Had I be doing so, I may well have put a link to the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). Instead, I was referring to Lucas Chancel's report Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019, published on 29 September 2022. That's why my post had a link to to Lucas Chancel's report Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019, published on 29 September 2022.queensland_addick said:
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 to Lucas Chancel's report Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019, published on 29 September 2022% 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.
I don't know where you get the line "the Super rich are personally responsible for 25% of global emissions". And, frankly, I don't really care.
"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."
And where did you get the 23% from? When it's only 16%.
You're only about 44% off target 🤣🤣
Why not just for once admit that you're wrong? just as you were wrong about so many things relating to the current US President for so many years, over on the HOC Boards, or have the courage and honesty to admit that I was ultimately proved to have been correct?
The 23% comes from the link in the report. Click the link and it takes you directly to the place in the report extract that explains the 23%. I can't make that any clearer, either.
That link also, for what it's worth, takes you to the contact details of the report's author, to whom I'd suggest you address any more queries you have regarding the parts of the information you don't understand.
"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."
So you were referring to a percentile were you, not to people?
Let me explain it to you:
Last I checked "per capita" means "relating to people".
I can't make it any clearer 🤣
Stop making a fool of yourself and just admit you're wrong for once.
The summary, which I think everyone else understands, is that the 1% of people responsible for the most greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for an extraordinary large proportion of the total greenhouse gas emissions.3 -
Constantly trying to belittle someone who has been proven to have been so correct about so much, whilst you have been proven to have been spectacularly wrong, is really not a good look.Chizz said:
I don't know if you're deliberately misunderstanding the data. If you don't know what percentile or per capita mean, then maybe it's not worth looking at the data.queensland_addick said:
And the "per capita" relates to?Chizz said:
Fortunately, I can. Top 1% = top percentile.queensland_addick said:
Quote:Chizz said:
The 1% refers to the most polluting percentile. It's not the richest 1%, it's the percentile that emits the most GHG. I can't make that any clearer.queensland_addick said:
So your "top 1%" isn't referring to the Super Rich? Righto.Chizz said:
You're pointing to a sentence that doesn't contain either the words Super rich or the figure 25%. I think you ought to stop and take a breath right now.queensland_addick said:
Well for starters, you reckoned that it was 23% right here:Chizz said:
No, I am not referring to a report from the Stockholm Environment Institure (SEI). Had I be doing so, I may well have put a link to the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). Instead, I was referring to Lucas Chancel's report Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019, published on 29 September 2022. That's why my post had a link to to Lucas Chancel's report Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019, published on 29 September 2022.queensland_addick said:
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 to Lucas Chancel's report Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019, published on 29 September 2022% 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.
I don't know where you get the line "the Super rich are personally responsible for 25% of global emissions". And, frankly, I don't really care.
"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."
And where did you get the 23% from? When it's only 16%.
You're only about 44% off target 🤣🤣
Why not just for once admit that you're wrong? just as you were wrong about so many things relating to the current US President for so many years, over on the HOC Boards, or have the courage and honesty to admit that I was ultimately proved to have been correct?
The 23% comes from the link in the report. Click the link and it takes you directly to the place in the report extract that explains the 23%. I can't make that any clearer, either.
That link also, for what it's worth, takes you to the contact details of the report's author, to whom I'd suggest you address any more queries you have regarding the parts of the information you don't understand.
"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."
So you were referring to a percentile were you, not to people?
Let me explain it to you:
Last I checked "per capita" means "relating to people".
I can't make it any clearer 🤣
Stop making a fool of yourself and just admit you're wrong for once.
The summary, which I think everyone else understands, is that the 1% of people responsible for the most greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for an extraordinary large proportion of the total greenhouse gas emissions.
But you carry on digging, and don't try pretending that Billionaires are personally responsible for 23% of Global emissions as you did earlier in the thread before you got caught out.3 -
Per capita means per person. In the context of emissions, the "top 1% per capita" means the 1% of the population who emit the most. In terms of wealth it means the 1% of people who have the most money.queensland_addick said:
And the "per capita" relates to?Chizz said:
Fortunately, I can. Top 1% = top percentile.queensland_addick said:
Quote:Chizz said:
The 1% refers to the most polluting percentile. It's not the richest 1%, it's the percentile that emits the most GHG. I can't make that any clearer.queensland_addick said:
So your "top 1%" isn't referring to the Super Rich? Righto.Chizz said:
You're pointing to a sentence that doesn't contain either the words Super rich or the figure 25%. I think you ought to stop and take a breath right now.queensland_addick said:
Well for starters, you reckoned that it was 23% right here:Chizz said:
No, I am not referring to a report from the Stockholm Environment Institure (SEI). Had I be doing so, I may well have put a link to the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). Instead, I was referring to Lucas Chancel's report Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019, published on 29 September 2022. That's why my post had a link to to Lucas Chancel's report Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019, published on 29 September 2022.queensland_addick said:
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 to Lucas Chancel's report Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019, published on 29 September 2022% 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.
I don't know where you get the line "the Super rich are personally responsible for 25% of global emissions". And, frankly, I don't really care.
"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."
And where did you get the 23% from? When it's only 16%.
You're only about 44% off target 🤣🤣
Why not just for once admit that you're wrong? just as you were wrong about so many things relating to the current US President for so many years, over on the HOC Boards, or have the courage and honesty to admit that I was ultimately proved to have been correct?
The 23% comes from the link in the report. Click the link and it takes you directly to the place in the report extract that explains the 23%. I can't make that any clearer, either.
That link also, for what it's worth, takes you to the contact details of the report's author, to whom I'd suggest you address any more queries you have regarding the parts of the information you don't understand.
"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."
So you were referring to a percentile were you, not to people?
Let me explain it to you:
Last I checked "per capita" means "relating to people".
I can't make it any clearer 🤣
Stop making a fool of yourself and just admit you're wrong for once.0
