A lot of sobering stuff here.
- "carbon inequality is so stark the richest 10 percent would blow the carbon budget by 2033 even if all other emissions were cut to zero"
- "the richest 10 percent of households use almost half (45 percent) of all the energy linked to land transport and three quarters of all energy linked to aviation"
- "SUVs were the second biggest driver of global carbon emissions growth between 2010 and 2018"
And if you're thinking "oh well if it's the plutocrats' problem":
In 2015, around half the emissions of the richest 10 percent - people with net income over $38,000 - are linked to citizens in the US and the EU and around a fifth with citizens of China and India. Over a third of the emissions of the richest one percent – people with net income over $109,000 - are linked to citizens in the US, with the next biggest contributions from citizens of the Middle East and China. Net incomes are based on income thresholds for 2015 and represented in $ 2011 PPP (purchasing power parity).
That's right, 38k and 110k. Not exactly Koch brother stuff.
I don't really have any good ideas about a world where we need to get everyone to live a life equivalent to that of having <38k a year. There are a lot of things I'd be happy to do to get there, but overall, from a US viewpoint, that seems kinda bleak. (bleak != unfair, but)
On the other hand, it's impossible for me to separate my own experiences with poverty from the US condition of "haha no healthcare for you" which isn't itself necessitated by conditions of lower emissions. So maybe that world wouldn't be so bad.
Comment with a webmention, or with commentpara.de