How the World’s Richest People Are Fuelling the Climate Crisis While Pointing Fingers at You

I have written several threads as the world heads towards EV Vehicles. So go ahead, bitch and complain and say its a ruse. Regardless of what you feel and the truth being the truth the rich and famous run the world. We cant do a dammed thing about it. Were simply along for the ride until we become too much baggage and were already there.

How the Worlds Richest People

So ATS member just what are you going to do. Ride a bike? My best advice to you is to accrue wealth by following the money. Then you can fight them as all your guns haven't penetrated their fortresses for centuries. Unless the family inbreed and dumbed down.

How about tea and Trumpets?

Whenever we talk about the world's 1%, we are usually referring to the few wealthiest people on earth who control up to half of the world's wealth. But have you ever wondered whether they could be in charge of more than just the world's finances?

Beyond just riches, a recent study that has been published in the PLOS Climate Journal has shown that the wealthiest people in the world are also disproportionately responsible for driving climate change.

This school of thought believes these super emitters are the ones largely to blame for the droughts, heatwaves, rising sea levels, hurricanes, and human activities that have led us to the climate crisis we are experiencing today. Unfortunately, the larger 99% are the ones who often take the blame.

Jarred Starr, one of the authors of the study is a University of Massachusetts student graduate from the Department of Environmental Conservation. According to him, "the top 1% of households are responsible for more emissions (15-17%) than the lower-earning half of American households put together (14% of national emissions)...we found that the highest earning top 10% of households are responsible for about 40% of U.S. GHG."

How the World’s Richest People Are Fuelling the Climate Crisis While Pointing Fingers at You

First thing that came to mind when I read that was "Prince Harry" and Megan Markle. Woke-sters who go around telling us how to live and what to do - all with a far-left woke slant - and all the while flying around the world all the time for things that are not important that they be there.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Sad isn't it. Two clowns on social welfare

Isn’t that the way it usually works, a rule for me and rule for thee. Not necessarily the same.

originally posted by: Waterglass
I have written several threads as the world heads towards EV Vehicles. So go ahead, bitch and complain and say its a ruse. Regardless of what you feel and the truth being the truth the rich and famous run the world. We cant do a dammed thing about it. Were simply along for the ride until we become too much baggage and were already there.

How the Worlds Richest People

So ATS member just what are you going to do. Ride a bike? My best advice to you is to accrue wealth by following the money. Then you can fight them as all your guns haven't penetrated their fortresses for centuries. Unless the family inbreed and dumbed down.

How about tea and Trumpets?

Whenever we talk about the world's 1%, we are usually referring to the few wealthiest people on earth who control up to half of the world's wealth. But have you ever wondered whether they could be in charge of more than just the world's finances?

Beyond just riches, a recent study that has been published in the PLOS Climate Journal has shown that the wealthiest people in the world are also disproportionately responsible for driving climate change.

This school of thought believes these super emitters are the ones largely to blame for the droughts, heatwaves, rising sea levels, hurricanes, and human activities that have led us to the climate crisis we are experiencing today. Unfortunately, the larger 99% are the ones who often take the blame.

Jarred Starr, one of the authors of the study is a University of Massachusetts student graduate from the Department of Environmental Conservation. According to him, "the top 1% of households are responsible for more emissions (15-17%) than the lower-earning half of American households put together (14% of national emissions)...we found that the highest earning top 10% of households are responsible for about 40% of U.S. GHG."

For logical consistency I guess we should note that in order to believe that the wealthiest 1% of the population is responsible for a disproportionate fraction of GHG Emission (and therefore a disproportionate contribution to climate change) you have to believe that GHG emission causes climate change.

I've said it before...the fact that seemingly intelligent, rational people believe the lies is as disturbing as the lies themselves. The useful idiots have swallowed the climate change scam hook, line, and sinker.

Bill Gates says we must stop eating meat, drive EVs, and be willing to make sacrifices for the greater good. OK, fair enough. So what are YOU doing Bill? Who me? I'm not part of the problem.


Here's one of Bill's houses:



Saving the planet with Bill Gates!

Obama says: “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.”

What's Barry doing to save the planet, you ask? Not much. He owns mansions in Martha's Vineyard, Hawaii, and Washington D.C., and flies in a private jet. Barry and his friends don't seem to be very serious about saving the planet.


We must make sacrifices!

Could it perhaps be, and I'm playing devils advocate here, that these people are just like us here giving their opinion on a certain matter?
Why would they stick their necks out on this climate conspiracy when they are already wealthy and important?

originally posted by: Jubei42
Could it perhaps be, and I'm playing devils advocate here, that these people are just like us here giving their opinion on a certain matter?
Why would they stick their necks out on this climate conspiracy when they are already wealthy and important?

Because they're narcissistic, elitist pricks, that's why. "Rules for the plebes, not for me!", plain & simple. They know there's an endless parade of woketards and "influencers" who will do as they say.





Ten Celebrities That Eat Bugs

As Starr put it, the political class should "explain to the rest of the public why they think it is ok for a small group of people to enrich themselves while leaving the rest of society and future generations an uninhabitable planet…let us hold them to political account for their choice."

~ "Well they pay me millions of dollars a year to enact policies that benefit them, of course"

originally posted by: 1947boomer

originally posted by: Waterglass
I have written several threads as the world heads towards EV Vehicles. So go ahead, bitch and complain and say its a ruse. Regardless of what you feel and the truth being the truth the rich and famous run the world. We cant do a dammed thing about it. Were simply along for the ride until we become too much baggage and were already there.

How the Worlds Richest People

So ATS member just what are you going to do. Ride a bike? My best advice to you is to accrue wealth by following the money. Then you can fight them as all your guns haven't penetrated their fortresses for centuries. Unless the family inbreed and dumbed down.

How about tea and Trumpets?

Whenever we talk about the world's 1%, we are usually referring to the few wealthiest people on earth who control up to half of the world's wealth. But have you ever wondered whether they could be in charge of more than just the world's finances?

Beyond just riches, a recent study that has been published in the PLOS Climate Journal has shown that the wealthiest people in the world are also disproportionately responsible for driving climate change.

This school of thought believes these super emitters are the ones largely to blame for the droughts, heatwaves, rising sea levels, hurricanes, and human activities that have led us to the climate crisis we are experiencing today. Unfortunately, the larger 99% are the ones who often take the blame.

Jarred Starr, one of the authors of the study is a University of Massachusetts student graduate from the Department of Environmental Conservation. According to him, "the top 1% of households are responsible for more emissions (15-17%) than the lower-earning half of American households put together (14% of national emissions)...we found that the highest earning top 10% of households are responsible for about 40% of U.S. GHG."

For logical consistency I guess we should note that in order to believe that the wealthiest 1% of the population is responsible for a disproportionate fraction of GHG Emission (and therefore a disproportionate contribution to climate change) you have to believe that GHG emission causes climate change.

actually, no, not at all. Not even a little.

a reply to: Waterglass

On a per person basis? Sure.

But, you’re talking about a small number of people. By definition, say 80 million out of 8 billion.

The billions in aggregate produce far more waste.

They also don’t recycle, purify their water, have personal solar power, energy efficient homes, buy quality items that last much longer, they litter, and have a LOT of food spoilage. Then there’s the sheer quantity of water usage, sewage, CO2 emission, and general environmental destruction caused by “the masses” (if we’re using the “1%er” commentary).

So, yeah - individually they probably use more and that’s particularly true if they have a private jet.

But there’s only a few of them compared to everyone. And, you have to think of all types of environmental impact - from the ding dong who pours his antifreeze down the storm drain to the person who throws away all recyclables. Those are crude examples, but, if we think globally then there are a LOT of people doing way way more damage to the environment if you’re cutting it based on “the 1%” vs. “the masses”.

Not saying there isn’t some level of hypocrisy to the commentary, but I do find the original argument a bit off in this case.

Global Warming in the 80's pushing the ozone layer will fry us all and acid rain..All they want to do is
tell you how to live your life. What you can have in your house, and what car you can drive, and what
foods you can eat...But,the rich will keep living their same lifestyles. Sounds fare to me...Where can
i sign up!!!!!!!!

a reply to: ColeYounger

Wealthy people paying to absolve themselves from the crimes to humanity being perpetrated is a tail as old as time. Of course the Wealthy of today are going to believe that paying to pollute is the same as stopping the pollution.

a reply to: 1947boomer

For logical consistency I guess we should note...

Logical consistency on Above Top Secret? My friend, I salute your adamantine faith in humanity. It does you credit.

Correctly judging who is responsible for what proportion of anthropogenic climate change sounds like an almost impossible task to me. Unfortunately the clickbait story linked by the OP doesn't actually identify the study it claims to be quoting. So − no need to thank me, it was a pleasure − I went to Google Scholar and found it for us all. Here it is.

Starr, J., et al., Assessing U.S. consumers' carbon footprints reveals outsized impact of the top 1% − Ecological Economics, March 2023

Here we use the Eora MRIO database and Consumer Expenditure Surveys to quantify GHG emissions related to goods and services consumed by United States households between 1996 and 2019 − including construction of a synthetic dataset to estimate top 1% and top 0.1% household emissions.

A few points to note:

• The paper is essentially an analysis of existing data from official sources. The study authors did not carry out any original research.
  
  
• The study covers only the USA. The US is only the world’s second-largest carbon emitter. China, with an output twice as high, and India, with an output half as high, are at #1 and #3 respectively. Am I supposed to believe that it’s the top 1% in those countries, too, who are largely responsible for climate change? Because I don’t buy it. Carbon emissions in China tend to be largely from state-owned infrastructure and industry, and in India from hearth-fires and inefficient public utilities (I won’t count the generation of greenhouse gases due to the use of fertilizers, since this is presumably factored into household consumption somehow).
  
  It’s also worth considering that in greener countries, where the bulk of energy is generated by renewables, the carbon footprint of all households, including rich ones, is much lower than in the US.
  
  
• The study assesses only the carbon footprints of individual US households. To be fair, this does include estimates of emissions due to household consumption of goods and services, but that is a very slippery factor to calculate − a reality that the study authors acknowledge and discuss in the Introduction to the paper (see the last three paragraphs of the intro section).
  
  
• The study uses a synthetic dataset of target households because, as the authors admit, they really don’t have enough data for these households (the top 1% and bottom 01.%), so they had to extrapolate (‘make up’) data for their study.

None of this automatically means the headline claim the researchers make is false. It sounds fairly plausible, because rich people consume more products and services. Making and distributing those products and services is the source of most household carbon emissions (as calclulated).

I’m not saying the rich aren’t the principal source of household GHG emissions. Most probably they are. But I find it hard to exorcise a suspicion that the researchers here started out with a political objective in view and then simply worked the available data (which is sketchy and hard to pin down) until they got the results they wanted.

* * *

As to my own views: everyone is a carbon emitter. We are all implicated in, and responsible for, the assault on our global environment. To say that there are big villains and little ones is of no material importance when everyone is guilty. It does, of course, make sense to go after the biggest emitters first if you want to tackle climate change, and a few exemplary prosecutions of the so-called great and good would concentrate the public mind admirably, but let’s not confuse that with culpability, because when we start pointing fingers on climate change, we see billions of fingers pointing back at us.

In case anyone prefers learning about the sources of household CO2 emissions and how we might cooperate to reduce them instead of just pointing fingers at a convenient scapegoat, I offer this much more sensible, simply written, reader-friendly article.

Five charts show how your household drives up global greenhouse gas emissions

a reply to: FlyersFan

Yeah , Rules for Thee but Not for Me . The Elites are All Hypocrites.......Effum.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

of course they are, we're back in 70s thinking that a civil genocide is the way to go..

originally posted by: dandandat2
a reply to: ColeYounger

Wealthy people paying to absolve themselves from the crimes to humanity being perpetrated is a tail as old as time. Of course the Wealthy of today are going to believe that paying to pollute is the same as stopping the pollution.

they've always have brought themselves space in heaven as the good guys..

its why its easy to see it as a religion and who the religious adherents are..

"How the World’s Richest People Are Fuelling the Climate Crisis While Pointing Fingers at You"

If that was the only thing... They, some of them, created the whole climate BS circus. To make us peasants pay for BS. BS like for example a CO2 tax. BS that makes money go from the bottom to the top.

They pay for the fines of the "climate warriors", the last generation, extinction rebellion and all that crap consisting of remote controlled and useful idiots. They pay them even a salary of around 1500 Euros per month.

Simply check out who and what the Climate Emergency Fund is. And how all this BS plays into the hands of the Great Reset, the so called "transformation". Coincidentally of course...

a reply to: DerBeobachter

You're kind of right.

But it needs to be done. Sorry if you don't accept that, but in the end the problem will have to be addressed, or we all die. Frankly, I'd hate to be the one standing in the way when the chips are down.