this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023
1115 points (97.0% liked)

World News

32355 readers
262 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

America’s wealthiest people are also some of the world’s biggest polluters – not only because of their massive homes and private jets, but because of the fossil fuels generated by the companies they invest their money in.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)

This is the best summary I could come up with:


America’s wealthiest people are also some of the world’s biggest polluters – not only because of their massive homes and private jets, but because of the fossil fuels generated by the companies they invest their money in.

That gave a carbon footprint for each dollar of economic activity in the US, which the researchers linked to households using population survey data that showed the industries people work for and their income from wages and investments.

The report also identified “super-emitters.” They are almost exclusively among the wealthiest top 0.1% of Americans, concentrated in industries such as finance, insurance and mining, and produce around 3,000 tons of carbon pollution a year.

Kimberly Nicholas, associate professor of sustainability science at Lund University in Sweden, who was not involved in the report, said the study helps reveal how closely income, especially from investments, is tied to planet-heating pollution.

Sometimes when people talk about ways to tackle the climate crisis, they bring up population control, said Mark Paul, a political economist at Rutgers University who was also not involved in the study.

Globally, the planet-heating pollution produced by billionaires is a million times higher than the average person outside the world’s wealthiest 10%, according to a report last year from the nonprofit Oxfam.


I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wouldn’t insurance be one of the lowest carbon footprints? They don’t really make or manufacture anything, minimal fleet presence (like adjusters cars and what not, not like delivery trucks or semis)?

I could see their investments maybe being problematic by investing in other companies that are heavy polluters, but idk maybe I’m missing something? Seems like they wouldn’t have much of a footprint compared to others at their size and scale.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I'd like to buy carbon emission insurance. If it stays above safe levels, I get paid. If it goes below safe levels, I pay them. They adjust rates offered based on its likelihood. Then they'd have a strong incentive to fund various activities to reduce pollution.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

It’s a strange accounting method, that almost completely reflects wealth distribution and ignores carbon.

For instance, you might say childhood obesity is a problem, then measure people’s investments in fast food as a measure of their contribution to the problem. And find that it’s the same people at fault, at almost the exact same percentage!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It’s a stretch to say that because they invest in a company, that they “produce” the greenhouse gases that that company emits.

Yeah, they could invest elsewhere but it’s just disingenuous to say they’re responsible for all those carbon emissions.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can see how it's strange on the surface, but ultimately the carbon emissions wouldn't be there if the polluting activity was not funded. So to whom would the carbon emissions be attributed otherwise? Just the CEO?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

You could blame the CEO, the employees, the customers, the investors, the city, state, or country, the regulators, the elected officials, etc.

Then there’s the choice of what attribute of those people to use for the accounting. Is it their wealth, their race, their religion, their height? Maybe it’s because they live in cities, or don’t.

It’s an almost arbitrary choice that reflects the value system of the person creating the report — an effort to score points, not solve the problem. I worry that climate action is often hindered by people trying to loop their other pet issues in. Let’s focus on reducing carbon in the atmosphere, please.

[–] Honytawk 3 points 1 year ago

If they invest and demand the biggest profit by countering greenification policies so they get more money as shareholder, then they definitely are responsible for the companies pollution.