If someone had made that statement in a blog without referencing a research paper, the first comment on the post would have been "where's your research? I want to double blind study!"
Bill Gates is among them and has a fleet of four private jets. He uses them to make regular flights around the world - so he can give talks on how it's the rest of us who need to change.
Gates is one of the best placed people to claim that the advantages of meeting people in person &c in disbursing his wealth (rather than just ‘giv[ing] talks’) outweigh the emissions. There’re obviously diminishing returns (do COP delegations need to be so large?) but it would be surprising if the optimum were zero flights.
He also backs a number of highly visible climate initiatives targeted at the public - with money from his own foundation as well as his presence at speaking engagements. How much more effective would they be if he were more willing to eat his own cooking?
> How much more effective would they be if he were more willing to eat his own cooking?
Zero percent. Folks who scream about the hypocrisy of it would not change anything, those who don't care will continue to not care. It would result in some media fluff pieces and that's about it. Sort of like Jimmy Carter living frugally and avoiding conflicts of interest - neat to read about, people might like him more, but it didn't change a damn thing in the larger picture.
A single person no matter how rich or wasteful changing their consumptive behavior simply doesn't matter. It's a systems problem. Putting resources towards changing the system is what matters - not any individual sacrifice.
I learned this lesson the extremely hard way growing up in basic enforced poverty for environment reasons. It was a sacrifice only my family saw, no one else gave any shits other than lip service. It just scales higher when uber-rich. No one changed their behavior after talking to us and seeing how we also walked the walk. We just got some nice platitudes sent our way while they enjoyed far more luxurious lives and laughed at us in private.
Recent world-wide political events should also make it crystal clear "society" cares literally nothing about hypocrisy. It's only used as something to screech about when you disagree with whomever is engaging in it.
Their definition of high-income groups is the wealthiest 10% globally. That's a net worth of around $100,000. The vast majority of people that read this site are among them, or will be among them later in their careers.
As a fairly hard core enviromentalist, and long term dedicated climate/ weather junky, who was born and raised in a socialy aware and progresive family, I cant quite agree with the title, and bunch like it floating around like it tight now.
The basic fact is that humans primary extraction of raw materials is now in the,(say it out load, for the thump) hundreds of billions of tons per anum range, this represents everything we do, and the unstopable momentum of our species to get some stuff, the stuff per capita that we are getting, keeps going up, and the population keeps going up, and any attempt to limit the other 8~9 billion people from getting stuff, will make them very very angry....it makes them mad, makes me mad.
So this looks like an attemp to use populist anger at the elites, to squeeze the poor.
The hard pill to swallow is that you can be an "hard core environmentalist", "born in a socially aware an progressive family" and still statistically be in the top 10% contributor of co2/pollution, this isn't mutually exclusive at all.
The American lifestyle pollutes twice as much as the European one which already pollutes like 5x too much to be sustainable (as per the targets most countries collectively agreed to) if everyone had access to it
We designed systems in which the simple fact of being alive is already not sustainable, it's OK to feel bad about it but you can't really deny it
Edit: and out of these 8-9b a good 30% just want a proper shelter, reliable access to clean water and proper nutrition, I don't think it's an outrageous request and I don't see why it upsets your feeling. We're a long way from them requesting American mcmansions with a 4 car garage, 5 hvac units, a jacuzzi, &c.
> The hard pill to swallow is that you can be an "hard core environmentalist", "born in a socially aware an progressive family" and still statistically be in the top 10% contributor of co2/pollution, this isn't mutually exclusive at all.
Count me in that exact demographic. Pill swallowed - long ago.
Still: humanity's dealings are unsustainable, period. The way I see it, there's a few ways out:
# Large scale conflict (nukes deployed?), human civilization thrown back to a dark age. Grim, but more sustainable than today!
# Technology: 'synthetic' foods, regenerative agriculture, fusion power, etc. It helps, but don't hold your breath.
# Get our numbers down. Yeah this is not a popular subject. But the sheer no. of humans is a big part of the problem.
# Out of control consumerism, fast fashion etc must be curbed. Starting with the 1..10% wealthiest people looks like low-hanging fruit to me. 'Wild' example: an immediate, worldwide ban on mega-yachts would hurt no-one.
# Fossil fuels must go.
Attacking all these angles simultaneouly (& co-operating / co-ordinating where possible) is the only way to avert a worldwide chaos/conflict scenario.
hmmmm, I think we agree, but I didn't phrase it well, my point is that the worlds consumption is huge, and growing, and that this growth in consumption will be driven by the bottom two thirds, rightly, trying to level up to a place where they see there children and grand children having ....you know, walls and a roof, clean water, and things to smile about.....
I have travelled some of the meanest streets in the world, and begrudge no one there hopes for something decent, but I got to those streets, by jet liner, and have rubbed shoulders with some of the worlds wealthiest on the way, living societies contradictions in real time..,it's hard to convey
Greater income causes greater consumption which causes a greater environmental impact.
How is this not a statement of the obvious? Its good analyse the data to check for surprises, but any other result would be a huge surprise.
If someone had made that statement in a blog without referencing a research paper, the first comment on the post would have been "where's your research? I want to double blind study!"
Like the seagulls in Finding Nemo, crying “source? Source? Soooource?”
The magnitude can still be a surprise
[dead]
Bill Gates is among them and has a fleet of four private jets. He uses them to make regular flights around the world - so he can give talks on how it's the rest of us who need to change.
Gates is one of the best placed people to claim that the advantages of meeting people in person &c in disbursing his wealth (rather than just ‘giv[ing] talks’) outweigh the emissions. There’re obviously diminishing returns (do COP delegations need to be so large?) but it would be surprising if the optimum were zero flights.
He also backs a number of highly visible climate initiatives targeted at the public - with money from his own foundation as well as his presence at speaking engagements. How much more effective would they be if he were more willing to eat his own cooking?
> How much more effective would they be if he were more willing to eat his own cooking?
Zero percent. Folks who scream about the hypocrisy of it would not change anything, those who don't care will continue to not care. It would result in some media fluff pieces and that's about it. Sort of like Jimmy Carter living frugally and avoiding conflicts of interest - neat to read about, people might like him more, but it didn't change a damn thing in the larger picture.
A single person no matter how rich or wasteful changing their consumptive behavior simply doesn't matter. It's a systems problem. Putting resources towards changing the system is what matters - not any individual sacrifice.
I learned this lesson the extremely hard way growing up in basic enforced poverty for environment reasons. It was a sacrifice only my family saw, no one else gave any shits other than lip service. It just scales higher when uber-rich. No one changed their behavior after talking to us and seeing how we also walked the walk. We just got some nice platitudes sent our way while they enjoyed far more luxurious lives and laughed at us in private.
Recent world-wide political events should also make it crystal clear "society" cares literally nothing about hypocrisy. It's only used as something to screech about when you disagree with whomever is engaging in it.
Their definition of high-income groups is the wealthiest 10% globally. That's a net worth of around $100,000. The vast majority of people that read this site are among them, or will be among them later in their careers.
As a fairly hard core enviromentalist, and long term dedicated climate/ weather junky, who was born and raised in a socialy aware and progresive family, I cant quite agree with the title, and bunch like it floating around like it tight now. The basic fact is that humans primary extraction of raw materials is now in the,(say it out load, for the thump) hundreds of billions of tons per anum range, this represents everything we do, and the unstopable momentum of our species to get some stuff, the stuff per capita that we are getting, keeps going up, and the population keeps going up, and any attempt to limit the other 8~9 billion people from getting stuff, will make them very very angry....it makes them mad, makes me mad. So this looks like an attemp to use populist anger at the elites, to squeeze the poor.
The hard pill to swallow is that you can be an "hard core environmentalist", "born in a socially aware an progressive family" and still statistically be in the top 10% contributor of co2/pollution, this isn't mutually exclusive at all.
The American lifestyle pollutes twice as much as the European one which already pollutes like 5x too much to be sustainable (as per the targets most countries collectively agreed to) if everyone had access to it
We designed systems in which the simple fact of being alive is already not sustainable, it's OK to feel bad about it but you can't really deny it
Edit: and out of these 8-9b a good 30% just want a proper shelter, reliable access to clean water and proper nutrition, I don't think it's an outrageous request and I don't see why it upsets your feeling. We're a long way from them requesting American mcmansions with a 4 car garage, 5 hvac units, a jacuzzi, &c.
> The hard pill to swallow is that you can be an "hard core environmentalist", "born in a socially aware an progressive family" and still statistically be in the top 10% contributor of co2/pollution, this isn't mutually exclusive at all.
Count me in that exact demographic. Pill swallowed - long ago.
Still: humanity's dealings are unsustainable, period. The way I see it, there's a few ways out:
# Large scale conflict (nukes deployed?), human civilization thrown back to a dark age. Grim, but more sustainable than today!
# Technology: 'synthetic' foods, regenerative agriculture, fusion power, etc. It helps, but don't hold your breath.
# Get our numbers down. Yeah this is not a popular subject. But the sheer no. of humans is a big part of the problem.
# Out of control consumerism, fast fashion etc must be curbed. Starting with the 1..10% wealthiest people looks like low-hanging fruit to me. 'Wild' example: an immediate, worldwide ban on mega-yachts would hurt no-one.
# Fossil fuels must go.
Attacking all these angles simultaneouly (& co-operating / co-ordinating where possible) is the only way to avert a worldwide chaos/conflict scenario.
hmmmm, I think we agree, but I didn't phrase it well, my point is that the worlds consumption is huge, and growing, and that this growth in consumption will be driven by the bottom two thirds, rightly, trying to level up to a place where they see there children and grand children having ....you know, walls and a roof, clean water, and things to smile about..... I have travelled some of the meanest streets in the world, and begrudge no one there hopes for something decent, but I got to those streets, by jet liner, and have rubbed shoulders with some of the worlds wealthiest on the way, living societies contradictions in real time..,it's hard to convey
The "as a" dragged on to long stopped reading before the castedeclaration was finished .
Who’s driving the bus full of those poor and disaffected people looking for comfort? Who is setting the example of how one can live?
Who is it leading?
Shit rolls downhill alright, but the buck stops with whoever is holding it. And who is holding it?
I'm sceptical, you can assign blame to any social group if you want to. Usually it depends on who funded or approved the research.
This one was definitely funded by the poor. Good catch