The rich are to blame for climate change

[former player]

Putting this out there for all those mustachians who like to travel and live in big houses to maybe have a little think about what they are doing.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51906530

"The wealthiest tenth of people consume about 20 times more energy overall than the bottom ten, wherever they live. The gulf is greatest in transport, where the top tenth gobble 187 times more fuel than the poorest tenth, the research says. That’s because people on the lowest incomes can rarely afford to drive.  The researchers found that the richer people became, the more energy they typically use. And it was replicated across all countries.  And they warn that, unless there's a significant policy change, household energy consumption could double from 2011 levels by 2050. That's even if energy efficiency improves."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56723560

"..the world's wealthiest 1% produce double the combined carbon emissions of the poorest 50%, according to the UN.  The wealthiest 5% alone – the so-called “polluter elite” - contributed 37% of emissions growth between 1990 and 2015."

[cool7hand]

I think we're doomed if the worst climate predictions come to pass and the survival plan is to ask those of lucky means to live like anchorites in shacks.

[bacchi]

I think we're doomed if the worst climate predictions come to pass and the survival plan is to ask those of lucky means to live like anchorites in shacks.

True but there's a big gap between a 5-3 3000 square foot house and a one room shack.

[joe189man]

OP what's your goal with this post? to get consumer conscious mustachians to be even more consumer conscious? are you against business travel and progress?  are you suggesting i move out of my home thats close to my work so i can drive to work from a smaller house farther away?

[Roland of Gilead]

It isn't the rich, it is people having more than a sustainable amount of children (which is something like 2, maybe 3 at most)

Every child creates a shit ton of greenhouse gases during their lifetime.  A condom could be the greatest green invention ever.

[Cool Friend]

It isn't the rich, it is people having more than a sustainable amount of children (which is something like 2, maybe 3 at most)

Nah

[PoutineLover]

My idea to help curb this issue is the reverse of frequent flyer miles - the more you fly, the more expensive it gets. Over a lifetime. Nobody needs to be flying, and if every flight cost twice as much as the one before, you'd probably be a little more conscious of it. I know the rich can still afford it anyway, but it might make them think twice.
Obviously this will never come to pass, but I think our governing bodies and the media in general tend to focus a bit too much on what each individual person should be doing (recycle, transit, reusable cups/straws) instead of focusing on the entities that are putting that waste out there and consuming far beyond their share of our planets resources. We need meaningful global action, and it has to come from the top and get the worst offenders to modify their behaviour and pay a fair share for their consumption.

[uniwelder]

OP what's your goal with this post? to get consumer conscious mustachians to be even more consumer conscious? are you against business travel and progress?  are you suggesting i move out of my home thats close to my work so i can drive to work from a smaller house farther away?

As stated, the goal is a bit of awareness

Putting this out there for all those mustachians who like to travel and live in big houses to maybe have a little think about what they are doing.

There are plenty that post here that aren't particularly consumer conscious.  A lot of business travel isn't necessary.  Not really sure how you're defining progress.  Do big houses only exist close to people's workplaces?

The most sustainable way to live is be like the poor of the world.  I'm reminded of this when I visit my wife's family/friends back in Mexico.  I don't think there's anything wrong with being reminded every once and in a while how privileged we are.

[uniwelder]

It isn't the rich, it is people having more than a sustainable amount of children (which is something like 2, maybe 3 at most)

Nah

Nah?  I don't get it.  If the world had 10% of the current population, wouldn't most concerns over unsustainability subside?  Overfishing, pollution, resource depletion, etc

[joe189man]

OP what's your goal with this post? to get consumer conscious mustachians to be even more consumer conscious? are you against business travel and progress?  are you suggesting i move out of my home thats close to my work so i can drive to work from a smaller house farther away?

As stated, the goal is a bit of awareness

Putting this out there for all those mustachians who like to travel and live in big houses to maybe have a little think about what they are doing.

There are plenty that post here that aren't particularly consumer conscious.  A lot of business travel isn't necessary.  Not really sure how you're defining progress.  Do big houses only exist close to people's workplaces?

The most sustainable way to live is be like the poor of the world.  I'm reminded of this when I visit my wife's family/friends back in Mexico.  I don't think there's anything wrong with being reminded every once and a while how privileged we are.

i get it, i ironically just got back from a business trip to Mexico, just feels like preaching to the choir

[Roland of Gilead]

Nah?  I don't get it.  If the world had 10% of the current population, wouldn't most concerns over unsustainability subside?  Overfishing, pollution, resource depletion, etc

I dunno, "nah" is such a compelling, well thought out argument.  It has me rethinking my hypothesis.

[ericrugiero]

Makes sense.  Private jets and big yachts use crazy amounts of fuel.  Multiple huge mansions take lots of energy to heat.  I don't think we have many (or any?) people here who live like the top 1%.  But, there are lots of us who would be in the top 10-15% worldwide. 

The question becomes what (if anything) to do about it.  Some of the biggest climate change advocates fly private jets from their 5000sqft+ home to speak on climate change.  We can all do our part but it does feel like that's pretty insignificant. It seems like the group here is already pretty aware of pollution and does a lot to reduce it. 

[Cool Friend]

Nah?  I don't get it.  If the world had 10% of the current population, wouldn't most concerns over unsustainability subside?  Overfishing, pollution, resource depletion, etc

I dunno, "nah" is such a compelling, well thought out argument.  It has me rethinking my hypothesis.

I'm glad to hear that.

[Shane]

Among my wanna be woke, left-wing friends, it seems to now be popular to fight against even the suggestion of any lifestyle changes intended to decrease greenhouse gas emissions, based on the phony argument that, "But, what about all the poor people? They have to drive their inefficient, shitty, old cars to get to their minimum wage jobs out in the suburbs." Apparently, asking middle and upper-middle class Americans to change anything in their lives to try to slow down climate change, is now considered to be 'racist' and 'elitist'. Wanton, hyper consumption by privileged individuals is not the problem, at all, according to my woke friends. Climate change is actually the fault of the 'evil' corporations and the 'military industrial complex.' The true intention behind promoting this narrative seems pretty clear. My 'rich' friends want to protect and maintain their middle and upper-middle class, American lifestyles. They want to continue driving everywhere in their cars. They want to keep living in their poorly built McMansions, cranking the heat up to 80 in the winter and turning the AC down to 60 in the summer. They want to keep jetting off for long weekends at resorts in Cancun and to ski resorts in Switzerland. In my experience, any suggestion that Americans' privileged lifestyles might have anything, at all, to do with climate change is almost always met with angry defensiveness and an almost absolute refusal to change anything. Pretty sure we're doomed. :(

[OtherJen]

OP what's your goal with this post? to get consumer conscious mustachians to be even more consumer conscious? are you against business travel and progress?  are you suggesting i move out of my home thats close to my work so i can drive to work from a smaller house farther away?

Haven't we found out in the last year that large proportions of "necessary" commuting and business travel are actually pointless? My employer's headquarters are in Hong Kong. I am the only full-time employee in the Americas. All of my fellow managers are in Europe. Zoom, Slack, and Skype are pretty damned useful for communication, including both team and all-hands meetings.

Also, how big are your home and car, and how far are they from your workplace? There's a huge spectrum between a bike and one-room shack a mile from the workplace and a big SUV used to commute to a 3500-sqft home in an exurb 50 miles from one's workplace. I live in a 3-bedroom ranch in an inner ring suburb less than 15 miles from the city center and drive a tiny hybrid hatchback. Even when I was still commuting, I guarantee that my energy costs were lower than those of a friend who has a 60-mile round trip every weekday to his 5-bedroom exurban home with three stories and a west-facing wall of glass. His AC costs are a nightmare in summer.

[Metalcat]

Makes sense.  Private jets and big yachts use crazy amounts of fuel.  Multiple huge mansions take lots of energy to heat.  I don't think we have many (or any?) people here who live like the top 1%.  But, there are lots of us who would be in the top 10-15% worldwide. 

The question becomes what (if anything) to do about it.  Some of the biggest climate change advocates fly private jets from their 5000sqft+ home to speak on climate change.  We can all do our part but it does feel like that's pretty insignificant. It seems like the group here is already pretty aware of pollution and does a lot to reduce it.

I would imagine that the millions upon millions of people commuting several hours a day, living in large homes with rooms they barely use, eating huge amounts of meat with every meal, are absolutely making a significant impact.

Just look at all of the regions where air quality rapidly and dramatically improved because of covid stay-home orders.

Also, the 1% isn't the ultra rich in many areas. In a lot of regions, many of the folks here would count as 1%. Remember, that's one out of 100 people. That's not actually that rare, and the quote is the top 5%, which I'm sure MANY of us fall into. The top 5% income in my country is $102K, and the top 5% wealth is under 1M.

[Roland of Gilead]

I'm glad to hear that.

Aw, now you just ruined it by using "glad"

See, "glad" is such a suspicious word.

Friend: "I am glad you are able to retire early while I still have to work another 10 years"

Is he? Really?

[bacchi]

In my experience, any suggestion that Americans' privileged lifestyles might have anything, at all, to do with climate change is almost always met with angry defensiveness and an almost absolute refusal to change anything. Pretty sure we're doomed. :(

Exactly. In 75 years, they'll look back at us and curse, "Did they not know or did they not care?"

[Roland of Gilead]

From a society standpoint though, most retired MMM users are pretty horrible for societal climate change.

Society put in the effort to raise and educate them for ~22 years and then they work 10 years and retire.

Society was expecting another ~15 to 20 years out of them but they were like "nah, I am good"

[ericrugiero]

Makes sense.  Private jets and big yachts use crazy amounts of fuel.  Multiple huge mansions take lots of energy to heat.  I don't think we have many (or any?) people here who live like the top 1%.  But, there are lots of us who would be in the top 10-15% worldwide. 

The question becomes what (if anything) to do about it.  Some of the biggest climate change advocates fly private jets from their 5000sqft+ home to speak on climate change.  We can all do our part but it does feel like that's pretty insignificant. It seems like the group here is already pretty aware of pollution and does a lot to reduce it.

I would imagine that the millions upon millions of people commuting several hours a day, living in large homes with rooms they barely use, eating huge amounts of meat with every meal, are absolutely making a significant impact.

Just look at all of the regions where air quality rapidly and dramatically improved because of covid stay-home orders.

Also, the 1% isn't the ultra rich in many areas. In a lot of regions, many of the folks here would count as 1%. Remember, that's one out of 100 people. That's not actually that rare, and the quote is the top 5%, which I'm sure MANY of us fall into.

"..the world's wealthiest 1% produce double the combined carbon emissions of the poorest 50%, according to the UN..."  The quote talks about both 1% and 5%.  I was referencing the part that talked about 1% since they are the ones that will have the private jets and yachts.  My assumption would be that there is an exponential curve that shows the relationship between wealth and pollution.  Someone in the bottom 10% of wealth won't be all that different in pollution amount from someone at the 20% line.  Someone at the 90% line will cause much more pollution but there will be a much bigger jump to someone in the 99% range (top 1%).    Of course, there are exceptions to this for people who actually take steps to be environmentally friendly (not just lip service). 

One thing I will point out, this relationship will actually be more about spending rather than actual wealth.  A millionaire next door type will cause less pollution than a person in debt up to their eyeballs with a big income and lots of toys. 

[bacchi]

From a society standpoint though, most retired MMM users are pretty horrible for societal climate change.

Society put in the effort to raise and educate them for ~22 years and then they work 10 years and retire.

Society was expecting another ~15 to 20 years out of them but they were like "nah, I am good"

?? How does that matter?

[Shane]

We're using a lot less energy in FIRE than we did when we were working. No commute, now, and FIRE allowed us to move to a nice, LCOL city, where almost everything we need on a daily basis is easily accessible on foot or by bicycle. Also, we didn't work just 10 years, more like 25.

[Roland of Gilead]

?? How does that matter?

Society needs a certain number of workers to develop and maintain the system to a level where you can actually have a discussion about things like climate change instead of having a discussion about which hunters are going out from the cave today to kill a elk.

Society invests a lot of resources into a baby/child/teen/young adult with school and social services, expecting that person will return a positive benefit.

If a highly educated/trained person drops out of the workforce during their prime production years, it can only be a loss for society.

I am not pointing fingers, I did it too, I am just saying I don't sniff my farts too much.

[Chris22]

As stated, the goal is a bit of awareness

An interesting fact about white people is that they firmly believe that all of the world’s problems can be solved through “awareness.”  Meaning the process of making other people aware of problems, and then magically someone else like the government will fix it.

This belief allows them to feel that sweet self-satisfaction without actually having to solve anything or face any difficult challenges.  Because, the only challenge of raising awareness is people not being aware.  In a worst case scenario, if you fail someone doesn’t know about the problem.  End of story.

https://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/01/23/18-awareness/amp/

[GuitarStv]

While I'll still continue to reduce my carbon footprint, minimize waste, and generally try to live a green life . . . I don't see any realistic way that we'll beat climate change.  The human race will continue doing what it does until things are way too late.  Then crops will fail, wars will break out, pandemics will spread, a lot of us will die.  The Earth will continue on with or without us.  There exists no real will to fight this problem, and no real solution on the horizon.

It used to really get me depressed.  But I can't control what others do, so have eventually written off the whole thing in my mind.  We're likely doomed, but not likely until the end of my lifetime - so I'm just not thinking about it any more.  It's a waste of energy.

[Roland of Gilead]

An interesting fact about white people is that they firmly believe that all of the world’s problems can be solved through “awareness.”  Meaning the process of making other people aware of problems, and then magically someone else like the government will fix it.

This belief allows them to feel that sweet self-satisfaction without actually having to solve anything or face any difficult challenges.  Because, the only challenge of raising awareness is people not being aware.  In a worst case scenario, if you fail someone doesn’t know about the problem.  End of story.

https://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/01/23/18-awareness/amp/

Labeling the beliefs of an entire group of people based on their skin color is quite racist.

[bacchi]

?? How does that matter?

Society needs a certain number of workers to develop and maintain the system to a level where you can actually have a discussion about things like climate change instead of having a discussion about which hunters are going out from the cave today to kill a elk.

We are long, long, past that point.

[Roland of Gilead]

We are long, long, past that point.

If true, then following my first point, a reduction in birth rates would by far have the greatest positive effect on climate change.

[Chris22]

I think that one thing the pandemic has taught us is that lots of us don’t need to commute, but OTOH, most professionals moving forward will be looking for a house with at least one, maybe two, dedicated offices. I can tell you our quarantine life got immeasurably better when we moved out of our cramped 1200sq ft house (1700sq ft with basement) to our new (to us) 3k sq ft house (4500 with basement) with 2 dedicated offices. My wife was working in a corner of our master bedroom and I had a desk in the basement that was open to the rest of the house, couldn’t close the door for phone calls etc. Now we each have our own offices, roughly 10x10, with doors and privacy and peace and quiet. We’ve given up our commutes, but at the expense of a larger house.

Although honestly I haven’t seen a huge spike in electricity or natural gas bills, leading me to believe the additional space doesn’t really require appreciably more energy to heat/cool. You want to talk about 10k+ sq ft houses go ahead, but the difference I see between 1200 and 3k isn’t a whole lot.

[Chris22]

An interesting fact about white people is that they firmly believe that all of the world’s problems can be solved through “awareness.”  Meaning the process of making other people aware of problems, and then magically someone else like the government will fix it.

This belief allows them to feel that sweet self-satisfaction without actually having to solve anything or face any difficult challenges.  Because, the only challenge of raising awareness is people not being aware.  In a worst case scenario, if you fail someone doesn’t know about the problem.  End of story.

https://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/01/23/18-awareness/amp/

Labeling the beliefs of an entire group of people based on their skin color is quite racist.

It’s “Stuff White People Like”, it’s mostly a joke poking at the fake activism of us whities.

And besides, as a lily white person I can make the joke :)

[uniwelder]

As stated, the goal is a bit of awareness

An interesting fact about white people is that they firmly believe that all of the world’s problems can be solved through “awareness.”  Meaning the process of making other people aware of problems, and then magically someone else like the government will fix it.


This belief allows them to feel that sweet self-satisfaction without actually having to solve anything or face any difficult challenges.  Because, the only challenge of raising awareness is people not being aware.  In a worst case scenario, if you fail someone doesn’t know about the problem.  End of story.

https://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/01/23/18-awareness/amp/

That's pretty good, I must admit.  I don't think you completely hit it on the head, but bring up a good point. 

[bacchi]

We are long, long, past that point.

If true, then following my first point, a reduction in birth rates would by far have the greatest positive effect on climate change.

Agreed, especially in the developed countries.

[Roland of Gilead]

Agreed, especially in the developed countries.

In all countries.  In the developing countries (where it can be common to have many children) it is true that they don't produce as much greenhouse emissions.

The problem is the developed countries are pushing their consumption on those developing countries, which has and will continue to increase their emissions per capita.  IE, everyone wants an I-phone.

[Cool Friend]

https://oi-files-d8-prod.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/file_attachments/mb-extreme-carbon-inequality-021215-en.pdf

[therethere]

I firmly believe the issue is not with the consumers. It is with the corporations and the 1%. Commuting, business travel, marketing to make you want more useless stuff, purposefully making things unrepairable, purposefully making electronics brick after 2 years, etc. All of these are out of your control. and the goal of capitalism and marketing is to make you want MORE MORE MORE. You want to reduce pollution, trash and energy waste then you've got to modify the system that encourages it for individual gain.


My skipping my twice a year flights. Using cold water in my laundry. Or reducing my single use plastic shampoo containers is going to have a near zero effect on climate change. My biggest single effect is that I do not have any kids. Other than having kids, an individuals actions is not going to have a large effect. Especially when you have to consider that individuals have to educate themselves to overcome all the societal expectations and mind games. And let's face it marketing is based on psychology so they have a leg up.

[Roland of Gilead]

https://oi-files-d8-prod.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/file_attachments/mb-extreme-carbon-inequality-021215-en.pdf

EXACTLY!  According to that paper, we need to strive to keep the poor people poor, because if they become rich too, we are going to be in a world of hurt vis-a-vis climate change.

[former player]

As stated, the goal is a bit of awareness

An interesting fact about white people is that they firmly believe that all of the world’s problems can be solved through “awareness.”  Meaning the process of making other people aware of problems, and then magically someone else like the government will fix it.

This belief allows them to feel that sweet self-satisfaction without actually having to solve anything or face any difficult challenges.  Because, the only challenge of raising awareness is people not being aware.  In a worst case scenario, if you fail someone doesn’t know about the problem.  End of story.

https://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/01/23/18-awareness/amp/

If that's addressed to me, I stopped flying 20 years ago, I live in a small old cottage, I have a renewables only tarrif for all my home energy, I eat local and vegetarian food and I drive an energy efficient recycled (repaired insurance write off) car about 2,000 miles a year.  Oh, and I volunteer for 4 different environmental groups.  And i haven't had children.  Please direct your accusations of hypocrisy elsewhere.  Thanks.

(Oh, and 20 years of my working life, before I FIREd, were spent working on environmental protection legislation at national, European and International level, some of which probably applies to you.)

[Cool Friend]

https://oi-files-d8-prod.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/file_attachments/mb-extreme-carbon-inequality-021215-en.pdf

EXACTLY!  According to that paper, we need to strive to keep the poor people poor, because if they become rich too, we are going to be in a world of hurt vis-a-vis climate change.

Nah.

[maizefolk]

"..the world's wealthiest 1% produce double the combined carbon emissions of the poorest 50%, according to the UN..."  The quote talks about both 1% and 5%.  I was referencing the part that talked about 1% since they are the ones that will have the private jets and yachts.   

To be among the world's wealthiest 1% requires a net worth of "only" about $1M*. A net worth of >$100,000 US is top 12%, so for lack of specific data let's hand wavingly the top 5% is $500,000. While both of those are certainly a lot of money in absolute terms I don't think either of them are private jet money.**

*At the end of 2019 (pre-pandemic), based on the most recent version of Credit Suisse's "Global Wealth Report".

**There are about 50M millionaires in the world but less than 5,000 private jets in operation.

[E.T.]

If anyone's looking for some ideas to start with for reducing your impact, this thread is nice:

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/what-small-things-did-you-do-today-to-reduce-your-environmental-impact/

[bacchi]

I firmly believe the issue is not with the consumers. It is with the corporations and the 1%. Commuting, business travel, marketing to make you want more useless stuff, purposefully making things unrepairable, purposefully making electronics brick after 2 years, etc. All of these are out of your control. and the goal of capitalism and marketing is to make you want MORE MORE MORE. You want to reduce pollution, trash and energy waste then you've got to modify the system that encourages it for individual gain.


My skipping my twice a year flights. Using cold water in my laundry. Or reducing my single use plastic shampoo containers is going to have a near zero effect on climate change. My biggest single effect is that I do not have any kids. Other than having kids, an individuals actions is not going to have a large effect. Especially when you have to consider that individuals have to educate themselves to overcome all the societal expectations and mind games. And let's face it marketing is based on psychology so they have a leg up.

You're suggesting this is like old age pension, where some don't need it but most do? In other words, some people have the wherewithal to make green choices but most people can't/won't, so we should tax the anti-eco choices to ensure a better world?

[Roland of Gilead]

A typical human, just eating and breathing, produces 2 tons of CO2 per year.

A typical jet produces 53 pounds per mile.

A 3000 mile jet trip thus produces about 159,000 pounds of CO2, or the equivalent of about 40 people eating and breathing per year.

The world population is about 7.7 billion.

It would take over 192 million 3000 mile flights per year to equal the CO2 produced from the world population just from eating, farting and breathing.

Usually there are about 14 million of these flights (probably a lot lower recently due to COVID).

Thus completely eliminating jet travel would maybe help, but still is a small percent compared to people just eating, breathing and farting.

I am not a climate change denier but there has to be a good discussion about population control if we are going to get serious about anything being done.

[Laura33]

Makes sense.  Private jets and big yachts use crazy amounts of fuel.  Multiple huge mansions take lots of energy to heat.  I don't think we have many (or any?) people here who live like the top 1%.  But, there are lots of us who would be in the top 10-15% worldwide.

It's not about private jets.  It's about the privilege of living in one of the wealthiest societies in the world.  The OP story focuses on rich/poor within countries; @Cool Friend's link focuses on world-wide richest/poorest.  And pretty much everyone here on this board is going to fall within that "richest 10%" tranche when measured on a global basis. 

I really don't like the whole "private jet" trope, because that's just another way of arguing that it's someone else's fault -- you know, like how the vast majority of people define "rich" as $X above what they currently have, no matter how much they actually have.  Pretty much every single one of us here lives a lifestyle of massive energy consumption, simply because we live in a society where we have private cars and HVAC systems and lights and computers and videogames and lawnmowers and all that -- we don't even notice because it's just what we grew up with and so seems normal.  I mean, I am currently writing this on a computer, with a SAD light next to me and a heater running on the other side, and I didn't even think about any of that.  If we're going to fix the problem, we all need to pay attention to all of those invisible things we take for granted. 

[Metalcat]

"..the world's wealthiest 1% produce double the combined carbon emissions of the poorest 50%, according to the UN..."  The quote talks about both 1% and 5%.  I was referencing the part that talked about 1% since they are the ones that will have the private jets and yachts.   

To be among the world's wealthiest 1% requires a net worth of "only" about $1M*. A net worth of >$100,000 US is top 12%, so for lack of specific data let's hand wavingly the top 5% is $500,000. While both of those are certainly a lot of money in absolute terms I don't think either of them are private jet money.**

*At the end of 2019 (pre-pandemic), based on the most recent version of Credit Suisse's "Global Wealth Report".

**There are about 50M millionaires in the world but less than 5,000 private jets in operation.

Yeah, most of my friends are 1%ers and they're living pretty normal middle class style lives, just very expensive versions of it.

People have a weird concept of what the 1% looks like. When I worked in high end finance, most of my clients found it shocking to find out that they were well into the 1% range of incomes. They didn't think that label applied to them.

[bacchi]

A typical human, just eating and breathing, produces 2 tons of CO2 per year.

A typical jet produces 53 pounds per mile.

A 3000 mile jet trip thus produces about 159,000 pounds of CO2, or the equivalent of about 40 people eating and breathing per year.

The world population is about 7.7 billion.

It would take over 192 million 3000 mile flights per year to equal the CO2 produced from the world population just from eating, farting and breathing.

Usually there are about 14 million of these flights (probably a lot lower recently due to COVID).

Thus completely eliminating jet travel would maybe help, but still is a small percent compared to people just eating, breathing and farting.

I am not a climate change denier but there has to be a good discussion about population control if we are going to get serious about anything being done.

The living CO2 emissions are 7.7B * 2t = 15.4Bt.

The US alone emitted 5.1B* tons in 2019 -- nearly a third of the living emissions with only 4% of the population.


Stop trying to obfuscate the issue. (And, no, volcanoes aren't the problem either.)


* That's actually energy related emissions only. The total emissions were higher.

[Metalcat]

A typical human, just eating and breathing, produces 2 tons of CO2 per year.

A typical jet produces 53 pounds per mile.

A 3000 mile jet trip thus produces about 159,000 pounds of CO2, or the equivalent of about 40 people eating and breathing per year.

The world population is about 7.7 billion.

It would take over 192 million 3000 mile flights per year to equal the CO2 produced from the world population just from eating, farting and breathing.

Usually there are about 14 million of these flights (probably a lot lower recently due to COVID).

Thus completely eliminating jet travel would maybe help, but still is a small percent compared to people just eating, breathing and farting.

I am not a climate change denier but there has to be a good discussion about population control if we are going to get serious about anything being done.

And yet most governments are actively trying to increase population.

[uniwelder]

A typical human, just eating and breathing, produces 2 tons of CO2 per year.

A typical jet produces 53 pounds per mile.

A 3000 mile jet trip thus produces about 159,000 pounds of CO2, or the equivalent of about 40 people eating and breathing per year.

The world population is about 7.7 billion.

It would take over 192 million 3000 mile flights per year to equal the CO2 produced from the world population just from eating, farting and breathing.

Usually there are about 14 million of these flights (probably a lot lower recently due to COVID).

Thus completely eliminating jet travel would maybe help, but still is a small percent compared to people just eating, breathing and farting.

I am not a climate change denier but there has to be a good discussion about population control if we are going to get serious about anything being done.

The living CO2 emissions are 7.7B * 2t = 15.4Bt.

The US alone emitted 5.1B* tons in 2019 -- nearly a third of the living emissions with only 4% of the population.


Stop trying to obfuscate the issue. (And, no, volcanoes aren't the problem either.)


* That's actually energy related emissions only. The total emissions were higher.

There are different ways to solve the issue.  Each person creates less pollution or have less people.  Having less people helps with other world issues as well--- resource depletion.  Just because Roland is bringing up one aspect, doesn't mean he doesn't believe the other doesn't exist.

[Laura33]

I firmly believe the issue is not with the consumers. It is with the corporations and the 1%. Commuting, business travel, marketing to make you want more useless stuff, purposefully making things unrepairable, purposefully making electronics brick after 2 years, etc. All of these are out of your control. and the goal of capitalism and marketing is to make you want MORE MORE MORE. You want to reduce pollution, trash and energy waste then you've got to modify the system that encourages it for individual gain.


My skipping my twice a year flights. Using cold water in my laundry. Or reducing my single use plastic shampoo containers is going to have a near zero effect on climate change. My biggest single effect is that I do not have any kids. Other than having kids, an individuals actions is not going to have a large effect. Especially when you have to consider that individuals have to educate themselves to overcome all the societal expectations and mind games. And let's face it marketing is based on psychology so they have a leg up.

OK, this may be one of the most anti-Mustachian things I've ever read here.  Consumers aren't to blame, because it's the big bad corporations that make us want stuff, and so we're powerless to do anything other that buy what they sell us?  Gah.

The whole point of Mustachianism is that I have the power to choose, and my choices are what shape my life and the world around me.  Long commute?  Live close to work.  Too much marketing?  Cancel the cable and give away the TV.  Electronic toys are designed to break within a few years?  Buy fewer toys and spend more time outside using your body.  Etc. 

Do the marketers have a leg up?  Absolutely!  But companies are only giving people what they want.  If they didn't, they'd go out of business.  If people decided they didn't want to drive any more, the oil companies would stop producing so much gasoline.  If we stopped chasing after bright/shiny bling, companies would stop making so many of them.  The ultimate responsibility always, always rests with us.

The idea that my individual choices are meaningless is true on the individual scale, but absolutely false on a societal scale.  The US alone has over 300,000,000 people in it.  Imagine if all those households could be persuaded to use cold water and cut single-use packaging.  Will we ever get all 300,000,000+ people to do so?  Of course not.  But telling them their efforts are meaningless and pointless sure won't help. 

All change starts within each and every one of us.  Because in the end, I am the only person I control.  Blaming some unnamed big bad is useless, because no matter how much of their fault it actually is, it takes away our own agency and our own responsibility.  It's nothing more than a salve to the conscience -- a way to feel good about ourselves while still avoiding any hard changes. 

[Mgmny]

I'm going to regret joining this thread, but i wanted to chime in and say that i don't think that you can unequivocally say that larger families are to blame for climate change.

If you only have 1 child, what if the 2nd child you didn't have would have invented some type of cold fusion? OR what if they would be a doctor that helps save patients' lives? I think, that for the most part, humans do good on the grand scale. Pollution/ climate change is a real problem, but it won't be solved by depopulation. It will be solved by creative and advanced solutions to the problems we have today. We need more scientists and creative thinkers, not fewer. 

[Roland of Gilead]

The living CO2 emissions are 7.7B * 2t = 15.4Bt.

The US alone emitted 5.1B* tons in 2019 -- nearly a third of the living emissions with only 4% of the population.


Stop trying to obfuscate the issue. (And, no, volcanoes aren't the problem either.)


* That's actually energy related emissions only. The total emissions were higher.

???

China emitted double the CO2 emissions in 2018, at 10.1Bt