Oxfam says that the 10% richest account for 50% of air pollution. People that have enough money to travel by plane should have enough money to not destroy our environment.
If the source you're citing is Oxfam's report on Extreme Carbon Inequality[1][2], which was widely reported as saying that the world's richest 10% produce half of global carbon emissions, that is incorrect. If you read the PDF, they're only looking at estimates of "lifestyle consumption emissions", not total emissions. From the PDF:
> Emissions associated with consumption by governments, capital and international transport are therefore excluded. The proportion of total consumption emissions attributed to the lifestyle consumption of individuals varies by country, but globally accounts for around 64% of the total.
> Oxfam’s estimates should only be considered indicative of the orders of magnitude, but also as conservative...
The report also says that women are hit harder by climate change than men and disparages "carbon baron billionaires". Petroleum companies aren't growing faster than the rest of the economy, so it's unclear what argument they're actually making.
Such blatant misrepresentation and pandering caused me to lose trust in Oxfam.
> Around 50% of these emissions meanwhile can be attributed to the 10% richest of people around the world, who have average carbon footprints 11 times as high as the poorest half of the population, and 60 times as high as the poorest 10%. The average footprint of the richest 1% of people globally could be 175 times that of the poorest 10%.
Again, that's "lifestyle consumption emissions", not total emissions. The poorest 10% make less than $2 per day. Of course they're going to be a rounding error in terms of "lifestyle consumption emissions". And before you get upset about super wealthy people burning lots of fossil fuels, remember that to be in the richest 10%, you only need to have an income above $16k/year.[1] If you make more than $100k/year, you are in the top 0.1%.[2]
Hah, no. They get rich, because the more wealth you have, the easier it is to increase it. Why? Because this is how the rich and powerful have set up the rules of the game.
Personal wealth does not correlate with any sort of "value" you have personally created.
> They get rich, because the more wealth you have, the easier it is to increase it.
The more wealth you have the easier it is to provide value to other people. That's known as capital investment, and it's how wealth begets more wealth.
Or they could just spend all that wealth they've saved on themselves. People inclined to do that generally don't become wealthy in the first place, however, barring abnormal circumstances such as winning the lottery. A habit of frivolous, conspicuous consumption is a good way to ensure that you don't stay wealthy for long.
> Emissions associated with consumption by governments, capital and international transport are therefore excluded. The proportion of total consumption emissions attributed to the lifestyle consumption of individuals varies by country, but globally accounts for around 64% of the total.
> Oxfam’s estimates should only be considered indicative of the orders of magnitude, but also as conservative...
The report also says that women are hit harder by climate change than men and disparages "carbon baron billionaires". Petroleum companies aren't growing faster than the rest of the economy, so it's unclear what argument they're actually making.
Such blatant misrepresentation and pandering caused me to lose trust in Oxfam.
1. https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/mb-ex...
2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19995922