What would happen if the richest 10% reduced their CO2 emissions to the EU average (which BTW is a nice standard of living).
Answer, there would be a 35% decrease in global CO2 emissions.
So, all would be fixed, if we could limit the excesses of the top 10%.
@MarkHoltom Hi. You’ve made an excellent point, but I don’t feel able to boost the post because you haven’t added an image description to the photo attached to the Toot.
There are a lot of visually impaired people on Mastodon, & adding descriptions is encouraged in order to make the place more inclusive than other social media platforms. It would be a great help if you could help maintain this culture by explaining what the photo shows. Thanks.
firstly, I add text to EVERY post I can
Next, the graphic is too complicated to explain easily - however, the text of the toot explains it perfectly, so IMHO the point is explained and made.
@MarkHoltom @RabBrucesSpider1 That makes sense, BUT a visually impaired user wouldn’t know that, so they still might wonder what they’re missing. Something like “graph illustrating point made in post text” might be helpful for such a person.
Anyway, I know we don’t know each other, and I hope this hasn’t been too irritating. Have a good day!
@RabBrucesSpider1 @betsythemuffin @MarkHoltom
I am glad that Kingbeard added an #ALTtext description after it was brought to their attention.
I boosted it despite the false statement in it that "all would be fixed, if we could limit the excesses of the top 10%" because it still well illustrates how unequal carbon emissions are between low- and high-income people are.
If I'm eyeballing it correctly, it would seem from the graph that even reducing the top 0-5 % emission to the emission of the top 5-10% would already be a considerable change!
Language like in this graph creates an illusion that *we* are not responsible for the CO2 emissions but the 'richest' in the world are.
10% of earth's population 8B is 800M.
The richest 10% _in the world_ are likely people living in US, Canada, Western Europe, Middle East, and Australia.
https://www.worlddata.info/average-income.php
*We have to limit _our own_ excesses _now_*. _OUR_ consumption is making it worse for the remaining 7.2B.
@ciredutempsEsme @MarkHoltom If you have the equivalent of 93 170 US dollars or more, you’re a part of the upper 10%.
@quixoticgeek
@LordCaramac
@herrmannpierre
This is not true.
The Global Carbon Project produced the image below.
1) that a certain level of CO2 in the atmosphere is fine (<>280-300ppm)
2) We do NOT have to reduce our emissions to zero. Just emit no more than the sinks can take up.
3) to get from 400ppm down to 300ppm, we will need to reduce more than the sinks can uptake, but this still doesn't mean NO CO2 emissions.
4) we don't have to go back to a medieval lifestyle to achieve this.
@MarkHoltom All fixed?
I support the idea to reduce that part of emissions but we would still have many other existential issues.
@MarkHoltom @baldur what seems intriguing is the conflation of two different metrics.
In 2018, Credit Suisse concluded that if one has a net worth of $93k or more, one is in the global richest 10%. So I’m in that bracket.
I can’t readily find what the EU average net wealth is but, seeing as EU average income is about $26k per year, I’d hazard a guess that EU average emissions substantially overlaps with the global richest 10%.
My point being that…
@GregStolze
Maybe these will have an answer:
DATA SOURCES:
-Oxfam & SEI (2020)
-Global Carbon Project
GRAPHIC BY: Lasse Kummer (@LasseClimate)
@MarkHoltom "all would be fixed"= nothing would be fixed.
If you have a burning house like we have a planet in a climate crises fueled by burning fossil stuff, cutting down global emissions by 32% is like putting out 35% of the flames.
The house is still burning. Even if we put out all flames nothing is fixed yet nor is it a complete solution to the problem in the first place.
See "Brighter" by Adam Dorr, RethinkX for further investigation:
https://rethinkdisruption.com/brighter-1-the-future-of-the-environment/
@Marty
I often ask this myself of unsourced “facts” posted on-line. Examining the graphic can usually reveal the souce. In this case:
DATA SOURCES:
-Oxfam & SEI (2020)
-Global Carbon Project
GRAPHIC BY: Lasse Kummer (@LasseClimate)
DATA SOURCES:
-Oxfam & SEI (2020)
-Global Carbon Project
GRAPHIC BY: Lasse Kummer (@LasseClimate)
@MarkHoltom "all would be fixed" is an extremely dubious assertion.
The extinction is worse the faster we increase the atmospheric carbon load, but the consequences happen due to the amount of atmospheric carbon load, not the rate at which it arrives.
We're not OK until fossil carbon extraction goes to zero, and we're not OK until everyone has enough to eat within a zero fossil carbon extraction economy.
Mark Holtom (aka Kingbeard)
Rab Bruce’s Spider
Betsy. (a muffin).
Kevin Leecaster
Voline
Folmer
Dr M
Shiwali Mohan | शिवाली मोहन
James T Monkey
Esme Ciredutemps
Brome
Thomas Delattre
Evan Light
Enby Shark
Quixoticgeek
_noelamac_
Lord Caramac the Clueless, KSC
VHG 🇪🇺🇺🇦
Jonathan Schofield
Greg Stolze
Léon Planken
Fuzzbizz
Solar Pierre
Marty Heyman
Matt Campbell
Graydon
grouchox
André Jüling