[jamescostian]

You're not replying to a comment saying "poor people are the biggest contributors of CO2 emissions", you're replying to a comment saying "driving people into poverty is the biggest contributor of CO2"

So the thing to look at isn't poor people's emissions, it's rich people's emissions, given that (relatively speaking, bc increasing money supply just decreases its worth) the richer rich people are, the more poor people there are (or the poorer the poor people are). This is well-known, you can google and find tons of articles, but here's one from BBC: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20211025-climate-how-to-m...

The poorer you are, the less you can individually consume, and the more you must go for things that are cheap at the expense of other things (e.g. buying single-use goods over and over is cheaper short-term than buying something made to last). I think the idea is that if more people were middle-class, we'd see consumers make better choices (personally, I don't see that happening without government intervention of some kind, but that could hurt poor people even more if it happened before poor people got more money to afford more eco-friendly choices). And on the opposite side of the spectrum, if rich people weren't quite as rich, they wouldn't consume quite as much in excess, and would lead to less emissions.

[lapcat]

> buying single-use goods over and over is cheaper short-term than buying something made to last

Do you have examples of these — single-use goods that are contributing to global warming and that poor people are buying over and over, more so than wealthier people — or in general, any empirical evidence that poor people are following this economic strategy, thereby contributing to global warming?

There's often a huge difference between what poor people actually do and think and what wealthier people believe poor people do and think.

[jamescostian]

I think you've misunderstood my position. You mention:

> that poor people are buying over and over, more so than wealthier people

Not only is this a line of argument I disagree with, I even explicitly said I disagreed with it in this part of the comment you are replying to:

>> I think the idea is that if more people were middle-class, we'd see consumers make better choices (personally, I don't see that happening without government intervention of some kind

[lapcat]

> I think you've misunderstood my position.

I'm definitely confused about it now.

You said: "The poorer you are, the less you can individually consume, and the more you must go for things that are cheap at the expense of other things (e.g. buying single-use goods over and over is cheaper short-term than buying something made to last)." I disagree that the part in parentheses follows logically from the part outside the parentheses, and I disagree that the part in parentheses necessarily represents the economic strategy of poor people. So, I'm not sure what your view is on that, or what exactly you intended with that sentence.

[jamescostian]

> I disagree that the part in parentheses follows logically from the part outside the parentheses

Me too, it does not! It's the reverse, the part in parentheses is what causes the larger part. Say I want water. A case of water bottles is a lot "cheaper short-term" than a single, reusable, water bottle. That's an example of the parenthetical, I'm sure you can think of many more. Now, look at how it connects to the part of the sentence outside of the parenthetical, and directly before it: "the more you must go for things that are cheap at the expense of other things"

So for example, if I were poor enough, I'd buy cases of water instead of a water bottle, EVEN IF I knew the single use water bottle was better for the environment and a better choice long-term! Note that I do NOT assert that most or even many poor people, given more money, would switch to reusable water bottles on their own (hence the "government intervention" bit). If you're confused by the first half of that sentence, think of it this way: if I have $10 and you have $1000, which of us can buy more plastic?

> I disagree that the part in parentheses necessarily represents the economic strategy of poor people

This really isn't about poor people being the most environmentally conscious or the least environmentally conscious. It's about "this box of pads costs the cheapest so I'll buy it". Even if you imagine a tree-hugging poor person looking at a diva cup thinking "this is cheaper long-term and it's better for the environment", if they don't have the money for it, or if spending that money means not eating for quite a while, then they're not going to buy it.

[lapcat]

> A case of water bottles is a lot "cheaper short-term" than a single, reusable, water bottle.

Uh... no? What size case are you talking about? Water bottles can be super cheap.

> So for example, if I were poor enough, I'd buy cases of water instead of a water bottle, EVEN IF I knew the single use water bottle was better for the environment and a better choice long-term!

I disagree. This seems to be based on pure speculation and projection.

> It's about "this box of pads costs the cheapest so I'll buy it".

You seem to be imagining that poor people can't do any long-term economic planning in their own lives, which is false. As if they're somehow trapped in irrational, short-term, self-defeating thinking.

Poor people can plan. They can budget. They can put off purchases. (They can also drink tap water, except in Flint, Michigan.) We're not talking about a homeless person with a few dollars to their name, who wouldn't be buying cases of water anyway, because there would be nowhere to put a case of water.

In any case, how much do you think water containers are contributing to global warming? This is why I asked for examples. The topic here is the 1.5C threshold.

[jamescostian]

I used to go to college. Nobody would spend $5 on a typical case of 24 average water bottles, that was way too much. $3 was more like it. A single reusable water bottle though? Even a cheap plastic one could run you $10, I'm sure you could find one for like $7 but the point stands. Convincing my friends to get a water filter was easy when looking at the money long-term, because they had the money short-term to cover it. If they didn't have the money short-term to get the filter and the bottle though, then they wouldn't have. It's as simple as that.

>> So for example, if I were poor enough, I'd buy cases of water instead of a water bottle, EVEN IF I knew the single use water bottle was better for the environment and a better choice long-term!

> I disagree. This seems to be based on pure speculation and projection.

No, it's based on not having enough money. I guess water bottles are a worse example here, you're right, I've done a bad job of making this point here. See my other paragraph for a better job. Here's a more specific example: a homeless person with $10 goes to a store charging $5 for a box of pads and $40 for a diva cup. They will not buy a diva cup. It's that simple. They'll get their pads. "They won't buy a pad at all" people have needs, maybe some won't but this is a matter many wouldn't compromise on. "They will save" what will they save, pennies? Trust me, this is not a winning argument, there are mathematical boundaries you can't cross, and there's also the fact that if you're optimizing so hard on the diva cup, you aren't optimizing as hard (if at all) on something else.

> You seem to be imagining that poor people can't do any long-term economic planning in their own lives, which is false. As if they're somehow trapped in irrational, short-term, self-defeating thinking.

You're looking at a poor person who has the money to save. I'm looking at a poor person who doesn't. My point wasn't about smarts, this is about basic human needs and a lack of money.

It's true that with more money, you can spend it on more green things. I won't disagree with you there - it was actually the central point that started all of this! And we were agreeing that just because they can doesn't mean they will! That poor people are not somehow magically much more eco-friendly, if only they were given more money. They're not some monolith.

> We're not talking about a homeless person with a few dollars to their name, who wouldn't be buying cases of water anyway, because there would be nowhere to put a case of water.

Very good point, my diva cup argument is a much better one than the water bottle one.

>> A case of water bottles [...]. That's an example of the parenthetical, I'm sure you can think of many more

>> [...] pads [...] diva cup

> how much do you think water containers are contributing to global warming

As I hope you can see from my own words, not very much. I'm providing specific examples of a generality. I can do more at other economic levels if you want. How about "how much does a cheap ICE car cost vs a cheap EV"? Of course, keep in mind the idea I have that people aren't all investing the most resources possible into eco-friendliness, as well as how eco-friendliness exists in many dimensions, so if you're saving for the EV it's harder to be saving for other eco-friendly things, the difficulty in finding a cheap used EV nearby, dealing with debts, etc. - and yes, I do think we can construct a lot of scenarios where a person choosing ICE vs EV can afford the EV, but I think we can also see how it can be quite burdensome on average, and that with more money, the person in question could afford to get to and buy a used EV (but again, I'm not saying they necessarily will! Or even that poor people put into this scenario are more likely to choose the EV over a more expensive ICE car, or something else entirely)

[ntp85]

The parent comment was about a knee-capped economy which would also affect the rich, wouldn't it?

[jamescostian]

Imagine if everyone made a little more money, except for rich people who made considerably more money. Prices would go up and pretty much everyone would struggle to consume as much (or, consume things of as high quality, or perhaps as eco-friendly), but rich people wouldn't really see much of a change in their spending power, since there's few of them and they're making considerably more. I'd argue that idea counters your argument.

Unfortunately, that idea is more than just an idea: https://www.epi.org/blog/inflation-minimum-wages-and-profits...