
World's richest 10% produce half of global carbon emissions (2015) [pdf] - perfunctory
https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/mb-extreme-carbon-inequality-021215-en.pdf
======
makerofspoons
If you make more than $25k USD you are in that top 10%. This shows just how
unsustainable our lifestyles have become and how in need of de-growth we are.
But how do you make people step back from owning cars, taking flights, or
eating imported food? People are not going to do so willingly, and our
infrastructure in many countries was built in such a wasteful spread-out way
that we will have to burn even more fuel to reinvent it.

~~~
yters
Wouldn't stopping our production of carbon dioxide essentially mean ending our
industrial civilization? We would have to go back to an agricultural
civilization like during the Middle Ages? Frankly, that seems impossible to
bring about unless there is worldwide systemic collapse brought on by global
warming or some other global catastrophe.

~~~
makerofspoons
We don't have to stop emitting all carbon dioxide, we need to develop the
technology to capture and sequester what we do emit, however.

~~~
ddxxdd
That technology has existed for billions of years:
[https://e360.yale.edu/digest/planting-1-2-trillion-trees-
cou...](https://e360.yale.edu/digest/planting-1-2-trillion-trees-could-cancel-
out-a-decade-of-co2-emissions-scientists-find)

I personally calculated that planting trees would be thousands of times more
cost-effective than driving Tesla vehicles:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19714034](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19714034)

Cutting down a fraction of industrial activity- which represents a fraction of
human-made CO2 output, which is only about 5% of mother nature's CO2 output-
seems a lot less efficient than improving upon mother nature's own carbon
sequestration schemes. It's better to sequester potentially _all_ of the CO2
in the atmosphere instead of targeting a fraction of a fraction of a fraction
of atmospheric CO2

~~~
aeternus
Yes, I'm not sure why so many people attempt to shame people into using less
energy. That strategy has a long history of not working.

The answer has to be to apply technology. Cleaner energy generation and new
(or old) methods to sequester CO2.

------
Johnny555
The headline is not quite accurate, the report refers to the richest 10%
consuming 49% of the _lifestyle_ global carbon emissions (i.e. household
emissions), which themselves are around 64% of the total global emissions.

~~~
krupan
So they are producing about 1/4 then?

~~~
fuzz4lyfe
>So they are producing about 1/4 then?

We. Unless you are a extreme outlier here. The top 1% globally make 32k USD a
year and up. I'd assume the vast majority if not all of the people reading
this are in the top 10%.

~~~
DoreenMichele
I'm not readily finding a nice blurb that says "$xk annual income puts you in
the top 10% globally." I've supported three adults with serious health issues
on under $20k annually for years and was homeless for nearly six years while
participating regularly here.

I'm American. I have also seen comments on HN from people in very poor parts
of the world. I don't think I'm the poorest person on HN.

Yes, the population on HN skews towards the well heeled, apparently pretty
strongly. But I have zero reason to believe that all participants here are
globally in the top ten percent for wealth/income. And, in fact, I have reason
to believe otherwise.

[https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/07/how-much-money-you-need-
to-b...](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/07/how-much-money-you-need-to-be-in-the-
richest-10-percent-worldwide.html)

 _A net worth of $93,170 U.S. is enough to make you richer than 90 percent of
people around the world_

That absolutely does not include me.

[https://www.quora.com/What-salary-in-the-world-puts-you-
in-t...](https://www.quora.com/What-salary-in-the-world-puts-you-in-the-
top-10-top-5-and-the-top-1)

Meh, tired of looking for a definitive figure.

~~~
fuzz4lyfe
My source: [https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-
finance/05061...](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-
finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp)

~~~
DoreenMichele
That source mostly delineates what defines global top one percent. I'm
addressing your claim that most _if not all_ people reading and participating
in discussion on HN are in the top ten percent globally, for which you gave no
figure and for which I cannot readily find a cut off figure for annual income
per se. I did find a figure for net worth, which I cited. My net worth
absolutely doesn't put me in the top ten percent globally and I'm American.

Could you either kindly provide an exact figure on annual income for the top
ten percent, or walk that claim back and admit you were in error on your
assumptions about the readership here or both?

Because I've been a regular participant for nearly a decade and I've been dirt
poor for most of that time.

Thanks.

~~~
fuzz4lyfe
Your 20k figure puts you at the top 3.65% globally in terms of annual income.
You live in the richest nation ever to exist so that is unsurprising.
Calculating wealth is harder due to the nature of debt and asset values. (Debt
isn't consistently reported/asset values require estimation)

Source: [http://www.globalrichlist.com](http://www.globalrichlist.com)

~~~
deogeo
I selected US as the location, and entered 1000 $/year as the income. With
that money, you end up homeless and starve to death in the US, yet that
website shows you as being in the top 58% globally. That one gets to die
homeless in the 'richest nation to exist' seems like poor comfort.

So I don't think wealth measured in dollars is a good metric.

------
gibolt
It seems that only a appropriate tax or other regulation on carbon across
industries will drive rapid change.

Unfortunately, politicians all think the personal and/or economic costs aren't
worth it.

~~~
phil248
Some politicians in one US party do agree it's worth the costs. A few are even
running for president.

------
ggreer
Note that this is "lifestyle consumption emissions" not total emissions.

> Emissions associated with consumption by governments, capital and
> international transport are therefore excluded. The proportion of total
> consumption emissions attributed to the lifestyle consumption of individuals
> varies by country, but globally accounts for around 64% of the total.

> Oxfam’s estimates should only be considered indicative of the orders of
> magnitude, but also as conservative...

The report then goes on to say that women are hit harder by climate change
than men and rails against "carbon baron billionaires" (the increase of which
seems to be due to economic growth, not petroleum companies growing faster
than the rest of the economy).

The effect this report had on me was to erode my trust in Oxfam.

------
downrightmike
Good thing we've added billions of people to the world, or the percentage
would be less diluted.

------
tanilama
Then probably the whole US population is at fault

~~~
pkaye
Except all those 40% who don't have $400 to spare.

~~~
tanilama
Doesn't mean their carbon footprint is low.

------
dan-robertson
This is pretty unsurprising, right? If you want to associate carbon produced
to people then you just say that when a company produces carbon it is the
owners who are proportionally responsible for it (rather than eg the worker
who shovels the coal into the fire). So this is basically just saying that the
richest 10% of the world population own companies which are collectively
responsible for producing half of the worlds carbon. But I think it would be
true that the richest 10% of the world population (700 million people or so,
twice the population of the US) own the companies responsible for doing at
least half of just about everything.

For example they produce more than 50% of the research about climate change,
or the efforts to frustrate climate change.

~~~
harryh
Ultimately it's the customers who are responsible, not the owners of
companies. It's the customers who create the demand that the companies only
form to satisfy.

By your standard, a few members of the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia are
personally responsible for a sizable portion of global emissions and
completely lets off the hook every single consumer of oil and gasoline in the
world.

~~~
lunias
_Ultimately it 's the customers who are responsible, not the owners of
companies._

I feel as though this only holds if you assume that all demands are just and
deserve or should be allowed to be satisfied.

For instance, if I identify that there is an under-served demand for anonymous
contract killing then why can't I start a company which produces the
corresponding supply? Assuming it was legal, would you place the blame on me
for offering such a service or my customers for consuming it?

I believe that careful regulation is a necessary evil to mitigate the self-
serving nature of human beings at scale. That regulation seems to me to be
better leveraged against the companies profiting on the back of unreasonable
demands than those demanding what is in their nature to demand. Asking for
something impacts no one other than the involved parties. Fulfilling the ask
could potentially impact the world.

If it costs companies too much to produce a good (due to caps placed on their
consumption and emission) then that good will cease to exist because it
becomes inviable in the current environment. Although the demand remains to be
addressed in the future when the environment is capable of supporting it -
should the demand still exist at that time.

If you take the other approach and instead charge the consumer more in order
to consume the good; then while sales will decline in general it may simply
result in the good being repositioned in another demographic at the new price
point. Or unrelated corners could be cut in production in order to offset the
mandated increase in price without ever addressing the causes for the
increase.

It seems slower and more error prone to attempt to change the behavior of a
company through the behavior of their customers. Why not just set sane limits
which force companies to adapt in order to continue servicing the demands of
their customers? Customers expectations will change too based on what's
available; just as I don't expect to be able to cheaply and easily put out a
hit on someone via an app on my phone.

------
tengbretson
I can't think of a less interesting statistic.

> World's richest 10% produce half of global food.

> World's richest 10% produce half of global medicine.

> World's richest 10% produce half of global scientific papers.

> World's richest 10% produce half of global interesting things worth reading
> about.

~~~
sokoloff
>> World's richest 10% produce half of global food.

It's more proper to think of the production of carbon emissions as an act of
_consumption_ , making the parallel statement " World's richest 10% consume
half of global food."

By caloric content, that is almost surely false. By retail price-paid value,
that is more likely true (but irrelevant).

