collapse

295 readers

130 users here now

Placeholder for time being, moving from lemm.ee

founded 7 months ago

MODERATORS

eleitl@lemmy.zip

BurnRate@lemmy.zip

Anarchitect@lemmy.zip

126

World’s richest 1% have already used fair share of emissions for 2026, says Oxfam (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 day ago by hanrahan@piefed.social to c/collapse@lemmy.zip

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://piefed.social/c/collapse/p/1649920/worlds-richest-1-have-already-used-fair-share-of-emissions-for-2026-says-oxfam

The world’s richest 1% have used up their fair share of carbon emissions just 10 days into 2026, analysis has found.

Meanwhile, the richest 0.1% took just three days to exhaust their annual carbon budget, according to the research by Oxfam.

The charity said the worst effects of the emissions would be faced by those who had done the least to cause the climate crisis,

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] hanrahan@piefed.social 7 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (2 children)

To give this some context, to be in the richest 1% for income, you need to earn about $80k USD equivalent per year or have a net wealth of about $1.2Million USD equivalent.

https://daadscholarship.com/how-much-money-need-to-earn-to-join-top-1-of-the-world-in-2025/

Our annual emissions per person for a sustainable emsiions budget is aboit 2-3t per year. Mostly were relying on the poor to do their bit eg the average Ethipoan emits aboit 0.2t per year. The average American about 15t.

Anyone who owns a large dog, or flys, or eats lots of beef, or drives a car is emitting morw then theiir share

We could start by banning all flying.

As Professor Kevin Anderson has talked of often, if we had the richest 10% live like the average European we could cut emissions by 40%, not enough but a good start and could be easiely implemented in a month.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/07/un-expert-human-rights-climate-crisis-economy

Outgoing special rapporteur David Boyd says ‘there’s something wrong with our brains that we can’t understand how grave this is’

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 1 points 15 hours ago

I really think that's misinformation.

If you earn 80k$ USD but live in a city where your costs are 30k$USD for rent and food, and you pay taxes of 40% (leaves you with 48k$USD), that's 18k$USD. That's 1.5k$ /month that still has to pay for insurances, transport, etc. Where I live, it's at 400€/month at least just for the car because public transport sucks ass here. Insurances are about 200€/month for me but I assume that can be more if you're at 80k$USD.
All in all, about 1k$ or less per month disposable income. Is that really 1%er life?

That means that I'm in the top 10% along with nearly everybody in my country and my life isn't glorious. Far from it. If 80k$USD is 1% and just 12k difference means you have to start cutting back on stuff like sharing the apartment, getting cheaper insurances, living in a cheaper place further away from work, buying cheaper groceries, not going to the restaurant or ordering in, cancelling subscriptions and so on, then 1% really doesn't mean much.

And all that is a single person! Imagine having a family. 80k would be nowhere near enough to start a family, raise children with activities, pay for tuition or anything else. That's 1%? No way.

If I earned 80k in the middle of bumfuck nowhere where I live, sure, that would be amazing. That's not going to happen though.

IMO statements like that are from napkin calculations that use averages or medians that do not correct for anything and ignore exponentials. I'd really like to see classification of 1% by net income. I bet it would be very different than just gross income across all countries.

[–] hash@slrpnk.net 1 points 22 hours ago

Thanks for the info. Living in the US without a car I'm left wondering how much time it takes for me to use my share. I'd wager I haven't passed it yet but I'm not naive enough to think it's much more than a month.