It is more complex then that. For example somebody earning over $70k/y might easily live car free and vegan in Paris, while not flying on vacation. Part of that is individual choice like living vegan and other parts are part of the system around that person, like the amazing public transit in Paris or that the French electricity grid is nearly emissions free. Somebody like that might well have carbon footprint below the global average.
In the end it is a systems problem. A well designed system should not allow people to harm others on a scale like that. But individuals do have agency and those with $70k/y more then most. If those individuals make good choices, then they might well be part of the solution and not the problem.
Yes and no. It is possible for someone earning 70k/year to emit below the average (let’s also keep in mind that the goal is not to be below the average, but to be at 0 emissions/impact), but everything you can buy has a CO2/environment-cost related to it.
As soon as you spend more, you have a higher impact. Of course there are more and less impactful ways of consumption, so you do raise a good point, but we’re not going to consume our way out of this misery.
A really nice book I shove down the throat of every single one of my friends who’s not running away fast enough is The Day the World Stops Shopping, in case you have way too much time at hand ^^
Granted plenty of people who earn less than me have far worse impacts on climate and some people who make more may be doing better. Like someone in NYC making much more than me might be causing less emissions just because better public transit and all their money just goes into rent. Meanwhile, someone in Texas who eats beef regularly, drives 20+ miles in their truck most days, etc could easily be worse while making significantly less.
10% of income is basically $70k/y. If you’re above this line - you are the problem
It is more complex then that. For example somebody earning over $70k/y might easily live car free and vegan in Paris, while not flying on vacation. Part of that is individual choice like living vegan and other parts are part of the system around that person, like the amazing public transit in Paris or that the French electricity grid is nearly emissions free. Somebody like that might well have carbon footprint below the global average.
In the end it is a systems problem. A well designed system should not allow people to harm others on a scale like that. But individuals do have agency and those with $70k/y more then most. If those individuals make good choices, then they might well be part of the solution and not the problem.
Yes and no. It is possible for someone earning 70k/year to emit below the average (let’s also keep in mind that the goal is not to be below the average, but to be at 0 emissions/impact), but everything you can buy has a CO2/environment-cost related to it.
As soon as you spend more, you have a higher impact. Of course there are more and less impactful ways of consumption, so you do raise a good point, but we’re not going to consume our way out of this misery.
A really nice book I shove down the throat of every single one of my friends who’s not running away fast enough is The Day the World Stops Shopping, in case you have way too much time at hand ^^
Also 70K net or gross is quite a big difference.
Also me not having kids and commuting using an EV that’s charged at almost entirely by solar/nuclear means I am well below that threshold.
Where I live district heating also comes from geothermal heat.
It’s before taxes.
Yay! I’m not part of it!
Granted plenty of people who earn less than me have far worse impacts on climate and some people who make more may be doing better. Like someone in NYC making much more than me might be causing less emissions just because better public transit and all their money just goes into rent. Meanwhile, someone in Texas who eats beef regularly, drives 20+ miles in their truck most days, etc could easily be worse while making significantly less.