Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5212 readers

702 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

745

Rich People Are the Big Barrier to Stabilizing the Climate (newrepublic.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

84 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Archived copy of the article

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

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I also think you overestimate how many western people are rich by this standard. For example, nobody I know would be part of the 10% here by that income, and I live in Norway.

And really, you really don't need more than that to live a good and luxurious life. In fact I think you don't even need to be anywhere close to that, even. Especially if you implement some actual rent controls, lower incomes are plenty fine.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I also think you overestimate how many western people are rich by this standard.

Still, many might be surprised at how many people they know or encounter who are rich by this standard. In a globally wealthy country, in the areas generally wealthy, you’re going to find “rich” people all over the place.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Well, maybe, I guess it isn't really surprising to me. I certainly do think many in the upper middle class are consuming far beyond what is reasonable, from cars, to massive homes, to vacation homes, to just the sheer amount of stuff they buy and throw out. It's unnecessary, and not needed for a good and still luxurious life.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I also think you overestimate how many western people are rich by this standard. For example, nobody I know would be part of the 10% here by that income, and I live in Norway.

Sorry, I guess I subconsciously decided to err high when discussing somebody else's wealth/success out of politeness, but I now realize this context is the exception!

As an American, I don't think I'm underestimating how many Americans are rich by this standard, however. Heck, even most of us who don't meet it still live the same kind of suburban, car-centric lifestyle as if we did. The people around you might not be the problem, but the people around me sure as fuck are!

And really, you really don’t need more than that to live a good and luxurious life. In fact I think you don’t even need to be anywhere close to that, even. Especially if you implement some actual rent controls, lower incomes are plenty fine.

100% agreed. I don't want to absolve myself of my culpability as part of the problem (or undermine my thesis that most Americans don't realize how much of a part of the problem they are, for that matter), but I have to admit that I try to live an abnormally frugal (and therefore possibly lower-carbon) lifestyle, and I'm very satisfied with it. I own a single-family house, but it's a relatively-small one in a streetcar suburb. I own too many cars (mostly old project cars), but I put very few miles on them because my wife and I both bicycle for almost all commuting and errands. My family lives comfortably on spending that's not too far above the federal poverty level, which means we do a lot of cooking instead of eating out and get a lot of our durable goods used instead of new. (Side note: it's crazy what some of the folks around here throw out: I've got a giant, 8' tall, solid-wood, built-in hutch in my dining room that I found on the side of the road! Luckily, I own a utility trailer -- which was also given to me for free -- or I'd have never gotten it home.) Finally, although my income is typically quite a bit higher -- we aim for a very high savings rate -- it's never been so high as to come anywhere near the "global 10% income" I cited earlier.

Anyway, point is: although I'm desperately trying not to be so naive as to think I'm the exception to my own claim about who's part of the problem, I do think I have a perspective that gives me a better understanding than most about what lifestyle changes are needed to solve it and how they're not as hard as people think.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Have you not seen like, housing projects? High rises? Run down old apartments? Everybody who doesn't have the kind of money you do doesn't live like they do anyway. Like, in terms of transportation, I spend my whole work day driving people around who don't really have the money to spend on a cab but have the money to spend on a car even less.

That doesn't mean they manage to pretend they're rich anyway, it means they make sacrifices you've probably never once in your life had to think about.

When they do splurge to make themselves briefly comfortable, it's at the cost of more sacrifices that you don't have to deal with anymore if you ever did. And then they get to deal with people rolling their eyes about how financially irresponsible they are.

Meanwhile the same people who make six figures are literally relying on people who make minimum wage in order to make their own lives convenient. And yet somehow that's supposed to end up with everyone magically living like you?

You live in a fantasy world. Not everybody has the time or the money to prioritize spending several hours cooking. Not everybody is left with enough energy by the end of their minimum wage no benefit grind of a day that you expect them to tolerate in order to sustain your hunger for little conveniences like places to go buy fresh food to cook for your family.

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

This graph seems to suggest the average income for Norwegians is around US$110k. That's pretty close to the global top 10% threshold of US$122k.

I'm unsure if that data is accurate, but if it is, I'm assuming you don't live in a capital/major city where things tend to cost more and hence average jobs get paid slightly more? The contrast between city and rural salaries / cost of living is pretty stark where I am.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Uh, no, the median yearly income is 572k NOK (51k USD), the mean is 631k NOK (57k USD).

https://www.ssb.no/arbeid-og-lonn/lonn-og-arbeidskraftkostnader/artikler/hva-er-vanlig-lonn-i-norge

Also I live in the capital, the rent's high :<

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah this uses average and a different type of calculation called the United Nations System of National Accounts (SNA 2008). They're also the data the study in the article uses for its basis. From the graph info:

Average National income within the p0p100 percentile group. National income aims to measure the total income available to the residents of a given country. It is equal to the gross domestic product (the total value of goods and services produced on the territory of a given country during a given year), minus fixed capital used in production processes (e.g. replacement of obsolete machines or maintenance of roads) plus the net foreign income earned by residents in the rest of the world.
National income has many limitations. However it is the only income concept that has an internationally agreed definition (established by the United Nations System of National Accounts, see SNA 2008). So we use it as our reference concept (with tax havens correction). To be improved.The national economy - in the national accounts sense - includes all domestic sectors, i.e. all entities that are resident of a given country (in the sense of their economic activity), whether they belong to the private sector, the corporate sector, the governement sector. The population is comprised of individuals over age 20. The base unit is the individual (rather than the household). This is equivalent to assuming no sharing of resources within couples.

[National income]=[Net domestic product]+[Net foreign income]

WID.world estimations as a proportion of GDP based on the following; 1950–2021: estimated from other components. These estimates are then anchored to GDP (see GDP variable for details). The estimates of national accounts subcomponents in the WID are based on official country data and use the methodology presented in the DINA guidelines. We stress that these subcomponents estimates are more fragile than those of main aggregates such as national income. Countries may use classifications used are not always fully consistent with other countries or over time. Series breaks with no real economic significance can appear as a result. The WID include these estimates to provide a centralized source for this official data, so that it can be exploited more directly. We encourage users of this data to be careful and to pay attention to the source of the data, which we systematically indicate.

No idea how much that affects things, but it's the official government numbers basically standardised across countries to try to factor in access to infrastructure, etc. Definitely not perfect because it still has tp be an estimate, but still at least based on the same official source.

Unless they genuinely fucked up, which is still possible.

But basically, most everyone you know is likely in the global top 15%-20% even if none of you look individually rich, because you all have access to a high standard of living.