One thing to keep in mind here is that “the wealthiest 10%” includes everyone in the western world who makes even a dollar above the median income.
I don’t think that’s accurate. Combining the total populations of the US, EU, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand gives you about 923 million people, which is about 11.12% of the world population.
And unless you mean to suggest that 89.92% of the people in those countries make above the median income, which is mathematically impossible, then your statement cannot be true.
Not to mention, this calculation neglects the fact that billionaires and hundred-millionaires exist outside of western countries, assuming all higher-than-median earners in the world are westerners. Which is false.
And, income is a bad indicator for this because the wealthiest 10% is calculated by assets, not income. Most of them don’t have any “income” because they make all their money via capital gains.
So no, you’re completely losing sight of the problem. Median-income-earners don’t constantly fly around in private jets and own datacenters that they power with jet fuel. They don’t own coal plants or oil refineries. Their carbon footprint is miniscule compared to the 10% discussed in this post.
The global population is 8.3 billion. So the top 10% is 830 million people. Global median income is somewhere around $3000, depending on how you calculate it.
The point is, if you are a middle class person in a developed country, there is a very good chance that the top 10% includes you.
The global population is 8.3 billion. So the top 10% is 830 million people. Global median income is somewhere around $3000
Yes, I factored that into my calculations. 923m is 11.12% of 8.3b; 830m is 89.9% of 923m. Show me where I’m wrong.
Also, if the global median income is $3000, that means a person making $3001 is in the 50th percentile, not the 10th. Try again.
The point is, if you are a middle class person in a developed country, there is a very good chance that the top 10% includes you.
Nope, this is about the top 10% by wealth, not by income. Lots of people who make $3000 have zero or negative net worth. And most billionaires have very little measurable income because of the way they cook their books with legal loopholes.
Trying to make this about income instead of wealth is fundamentally misguided and misinformed.
Wealth vs income is an irrelevant distinction when you are talking about the top 10% globally. The point I’m making is that a middle class person in a developed country is likely to be in the top 10% globally by either measure. The problem is vastly larger than just what a couple billionaires are doing, no matter how much the rest of us want to pretend we aren’t part of the problem.
Wealth vs income is an irrelevant distinction when you are talking about the top 10% globally.
No it’s not.
The point I’m making is that a middle class person in a developed country is likely to be in the top 10% globally by either measure.
That’s the part that’s not relevant to this discussion.
The problem is vastly larger than just what a couple billionaires are doing, no matter how much the rest of us want to pretend we aren’t part of the problem.
And yet the whole point of this post is that climate change is being disproportionally caused by the wealthiest people. A key part of the background to that is how the impetus to solve global warming has been placed on the consumers for decades.
“Recycle. Drive less. Use less A/C. Stop using disposable plastics. Take less baths.” When in many places, modern life has been designed such that many of those things are unavoidable in modern society (by capitalist oligarchs, funny that).
Not that we shouldn’t try to do those things to the best of our ability. We should. But for most of us, keeping a perfect track record is not only impossible, but it adds an enormous amount of stress which leads to burnout and callousness, and any given person’s individual contribution to minimizing their contributions to global warming will be comparatively tiny, no matter how good they do it.
How much of a dent will it really make when you have corporate office buildings that run A/C on full blast even at night when nobody is there, or during the day with windows open because people can’t control the temperatures in their offices and it gets too cold for some people? Likewise with heating in the winter.
The problem is systemic and needs to be addressed at the systemic level, starting with the biggest contributors (corporations and billionaires).
Pretending this is a middle class problem that the middle class needs to solve is only doing the billionaires’ work of obfuscation, gaslighting, and manipulation for them.
I repeat, no individual working-class person’s efforts to slow or reverse climate change will ever be enough to achieve it.
I don’t think that’s accurate. Combining the total populations of the US, EU, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand gives you about 923 million people, which is about 11.12% of the world population.
And unless you mean to suggest that 89.92% of the people in those countries make above the median income, which is mathematically impossible, then your statement cannot be true.
Not to mention, this calculation neglects the fact that billionaires and hundred-millionaires exist outside of western countries, assuming all higher-than-median earners in the world are westerners. Which is false.
And, income is a bad indicator for this because the wealthiest 10% is calculated by assets, not income. Most of them don’t have any “income” because they make all their money via capital gains.
So no, you’re completely losing sight of the problem. Median-income-earners don’t constantly fly around in private jets and own datacenters that they power with jet fuel. They don’t own coal plants or oil refineries. Their carbon footprint is miniscule compared to the 10% discussed in this post.
The global population is 8.3 billion. So the top 10% is 830 million people. Global median income is somewhere around $3000, depending on how you calculate it.
The point is, if you are a middle class person in a developed country, there is a very good chance that the top 10% includes you.
Yes, I factored that into my calculations. 923m is 11.12% of 8.3b; 830m is 89.9% of 923m. Show me where I’m wrong.
Also, if the global median income is $3000, that means a person making $3001 is in the 50th percentile, not the 10th. Try again.
Nope, this is about the top 10% by wealth, not by income. Lots of people who make $3000 have zero or negative net worth. And most billionaires have very little measurable income because of the way they cook their books with legal loopholes.
Trying to make this about income instead of wealth is fundamentally misguided and misinformed.
Wealth vs income is an irrelevant distinction when you are talking about the top 10% globally. The point I’m making is that a middle class person in a developed country is likely to be in the top 10% globally by either measure. The problem is vastly larger than just what a couple billionaires are doing, no matter how much the rest of us want to pretend we aren’t part of the problem.
No it’s not.
That’s the part that’s not relevant to this discussion.
And yet the whole point of this post is that climate change is being disproportionally caused by the wealthiest people. A key part of the background to that is how the impetus to solve global warming has been placed on the consumers for decades.
“Recycle. Drive less. Use less A/C. Stop using disposable plastics. Take less baths.” When in many places, modern life has been designed such that many of those things are unavoidable in modern society (by capitalist oligarchs, funny that).
Not that we shouldn’t try to do those things to the best of our ability. We should. But for most of us, keeping a perfect track record is not only impossible, but it adds an enormous amount of stress which leads to burnout and callousness, and any given person’s individual contribution to minimizing their contributions to global warming will be comparatively tiny, no matter how good they do it.
How much of a dent will it really make when you have corporate office buildings that run A/C on full blast even at night when nobody is there, or during the day with windows open because people can’t control the temperatures in their offices and it gets too cold for some people? Likewise with heating in the winter.
The problem is systemic and needs to be addressed at the systemic level, starting with the biggest contributors (corporations and billionaires).
Pretending this is a middle class problem that the middle class needs to solve is only doing the billionaires’ work of obfuscation, gaslighting, and manipulation for them.
I repeat, no individual working-class person’s efforts to slow or reverse climate change will ever be enough to achieve it.