
Shift the focus from the super-poor to the super-rich - wickwavy
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0402-3.epdf?shared_access_token=7OPeT83SpqkdK7TJh8Yra9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NgXOyro3PW5-YFOp4drdu9crvYlL8Kf1-UbdyVKRxNBAuaBNpX6G8ddPkQda-O8IHjl0V95DxApFTR_pOg3hux2NQH6YnjvA6Y2scuZx0ZAnouQyAj5-OV-vjrs6HVGzU%3D
======
emerongi
Why is the title extrapolating from 4 interviews to 42M people? First off, I
can't spot the 42M figure anywhere - I only see 36M - and the article doesn't
seem to be extrapolating like that. It's just saying there's potential gains
to be made from researching and targeting the super-rich, in a multitude of
ways.

Edit: the title has now been changed

------
gyaniv
I don't think proper research can be done based on answers from only 4
interviewees. I think I know some people who belong to this group (although
it's hard to tell seeing as I don't point blank ask them), and while they do
fly quite often, they basically never fly private, which would instantly cut
the amount of emissions mentioned in the article.

In addition, carbon taxes, and environmental taxes will specifically target
this group as their main source of carbon emission, is transportation.

------
atoav
And there are still people who believe we only need some kind of CO2-friendly
car and powerplant and we are fine.

------
hos234
Elon is building starships, to shoot them off into space. Maybe that's a
solution.

That said, changing the minds and behavior of 42 million people doesn't
actually seem that complicated. Marketing depts are constantly targeting this
segment. We know what their weaknesses are. Just requires a bit of world wide
coordination and planning.

~~~
AstralStorm
Just calculate the impact of one launch in tons CO2. It's not a great picture,
and half of it is in stratosphere.

------
m0zg
And a good number of those 42M are right here on this site, perennially
outraged about climate change.

~~~
atoav
Ok, and how does this insight help to solve the problem? Or did you already
decide not to solve it?

~~~
m0zg
I'm not "solving problems" here. I'm just calling out the hypocrisy of the
upper middle class who would like to, at the same time, have high carbon upper
middle class lifestyle, and cry about climate change on Twitter. It's always
got to be someone else who has to "sacrifice".

As to me personally, I work from home, so I likely emit considerably less than
most people. And most of my energy consumption is electricity ($200/mo -
servers in the garage), but in my state that's mostly hydro. I do eat meat
though, and I'm not about to stop eating it.

~~~
anoncake
What does this accomplish? Calling people hypocrites for "crying" about
climate change just makes them deny that their lifestyle is a problem in the
first place. That is strictly worse than "hypocrisy": It reduces the
prominence of climate change in public discourse and moves public opinion even
further away from "let's not destroy our livelihoods" to "muh jobs". In
addition, someone who does take their carbon footprint into account but is a
flawed human being rather than Jesus still has a lower footprint than someone
who ignores it to avoid being a hypocrite.

~~~
m0zg
But they are in denial already. Calling them hypocrites is just stating the
obvious. Hopefully it'll make them think, even if for a fleeting minute, and
not buy that third Hawaiian vacation this year.

~~~
anoncake
No, someone who denies the importance of protecting the climate by definition
cannot be hypocritical for not protecting the climate. Also, making hypocrites
think is pointless because their thoughts aren't the problem to begin with,
their _actions_ are.

They say you cannot make someone believe something when their salary depends
on not believing it. Of course you can't if society deems it more important
that your thoughts match your actions than that they match reality.

------
blackflame7000
I don’t know whether to be outraged or quiet. I’m what you’d call a bubble
team

~~~
sho
> I’m what you’d call a bubble team

Care to define this for the 99.99999% of consciousnesses outside your head who
have no idea what that means

~~~
blackflame7000
Other people got it because they upvoted. But to shed a little light, a bubble
team is a term from the NCAAB for a team that may or may not make the final 64
team bracket. Thus my comment, which again other people understood, is that
idk if I'm in the 42M or not.

Hey look, arrogance aside you learned something today or not. I at least
learned that you have no clue what march madness is. So downvote away it
doesnt change your gaffe. Its pretty sad actually that you go through my
comments and start flagging things after you got shut down. That’s some
pathetic shit if ive ever seen it

~~~
sho
Thank you for clarifying. It's an unknown, basically. I too feel in this
category about the 42M, although I suspect i'm on the offending side of the
line.

I have no clue about "march madness", all I know is it's some kind of american
sports thing. I did not go through your past comments, jesus. Anyone who did -
stop it.

~~~
whiteflame7000
It was a poor assumption to think everyone would know that term outside of
America, my apologies. Almost every major university in America has a men's
basketball program so it would be hard not to come upon the term while at 4
year college here in the states.

~~~
sho
Just so you know, north of 95% of people are "outside of America". We have no
idea, or desire to know, about your school basketball programs. Just FYI

~~~
DoreenMichele
I'm American, born and raised. I've heard of March Madness (though I don't
actually know what it means).

I had no idea what _bubble team_ meant whatsoever. It was wholly unfamiliar to
me.

------
fallingfrog
At a moment when we need to retool our whole economy to run on carbon free
energy, we really can’t afford to still have people running massive super
yachts and palatial mansions.

