|
|
|
|
|
|
by ggreer
2539 days ago
|
|
|
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. 1. https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/mb-ex... 2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19995922 |
|
|
> 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%.