[MildlySerious]

You could cut the emissions of the top 1% in half, or reduce the emissions of the bottom 4 billion to 0. Same result.

Which do you believe is likely the lower hanging fruit, has a higher return per dollar spent and is likely to be more ethical and less invasive?

So yeah. I care about per capita emissions on the grounds that things need to change fast, and adjusting the lifestyle of a few million is radically easier than wiping half the planet off the emissions map.

[IncreasePosts]

You're not actually looking at per capita emissions, you're looking at overall emissions. It isn't that the 1% to .1% are the biggest emitters, it's their emission levels multiplied by the size of the class.

Billionaires aren't the 1%, they're the 0.00003%.

Top 1% globally is basically anyone making more than $100k/yr.

If you deleted all billionaires from existence, it would make no impact on climate change. If you deleted all 1% ers and left the billionaires, there will be a huge improvement in climate changing emissions