The thing is, even if it’s true that the average billionaire uses 1,000,000x as much energy as the average person, there are so few billionaires that most of the world’s CO2 is still emitted by the other 8.2 billion.
We definitely should make it so there are no billionaires. Tax them out of existence, and if that doesn’t work, axe them out of existence.
Having said that, we also need to take responsibility for our own wasteful lives. Just look at how inefficient cars are. In North America it’s perfectly normal to jump into a vehicle and haul around multiple tons of steel just to go get coffee. Another major source of CO2 is electricity and heat. Thankfully solar cells are getting so cheap that within a few decades (if the oil lobby can be defeated) most electricity will probably be solar. But, should we really be living in places where the heat needs to be turned on for 6 months of the year?
Canada is bringing in hundreds of thousands of immigrants per year, and the total population is growing at something like 1 million more people per year. Each one of those people becomes one of the most energy-using people on the planet, partially because the North American lifestyle is wasteful, partially because Canada is insanely cold half the year and requires massive energy for heating. Every new Canadian, whether a birth or an immigrant makes the world’s CO2 footprint much bigger. Maybe Canada should start shrinking and not growing, and the population should move to places where such a massively energy intensive lifestyle is not necessary.
Articles like this always seem like they’re people looking for a way to shift the blame to someone else. This time it’s the billionaires. Other times it has been corporations. People never take responsibility for their own lives.
Im mostly commenting so I can use this to remind myself later to research it, but I wonder which would be better enviromentally? Living in a cold place that requires heating 6 months of the year, or AC?
there are about 3000 billionaires, if they generate a million people’s world of CO2 each, that’s the pollution of 3 billion people!!! about half the world population.
even ignoring their lobbying, just snapping them away Thanos style would mean more co2 saving than eliminating any single industry.
Mary Antoinette them is likely not the solution, better to regulate them and tax them out of existence. or Antoinette then if they keep fighting to kill us all.
if they generate a million people’s world of CO2 each, that’s the pollution of 3 billion people!!!
Which is why I doubt that that’s true. For it to be true, you’d probably have to do some kind of calculation like “if this privately owned company is owned by a billionaire, then assign all CO2 emissions from its entire operations to that one individual”. So, if you eliminated them, you actually wouldn’t eliminate those CO2 emissions. Someone would take over that business and it would continue putting out CO2 as long as someone was buying its products and/or services.
The science is available for you to double check the math and methods. Go do that and show us your findings if you dispute the results instead of baselessly assuming it isn’t true because it doesn’t fit your preconceived assumptions.
It’s likely that the “million times more than the average person” includes the CO2 emissions from their stocks. still, making them scared is the easiest way to stop them from burning the planet where I live.
But you’re not going to make them scared by publishing made up news stories like this. What will make them scared is politicians who they haven’t bought being in power.
A lot of the “oil lobby” is suburban dwellers who rely on their cars for everything and oppose anything transportation-related that isn’t a subsidy for cars and roads.
The thing is, even if it’s true that the average billionaire uses 1,000,000x as much energy as the average person, there are so few billionaires that most of the world’s CO2 is still emitted by the other 8.2 billion.
We definitely should make it so there are no billionaires. Tax them out of existence, and if that doesn’t work, axe them out of existence.
Having said that, we also need to take responsibility for our own wasteful lives. Just look at how inefficient cars are. In North America it’s perfectly normal to jump into a vehicle and haul around multiple tons of steel just to go get coffee. Another major source of CO2 is electricity and heat. Thankfully solar cells are getting so cheap that within a few decades (if the oil lobby can be defeated) most electricity will probably be solar. But, should we really be living in places where the heat needs to be turned on for 6 months of the year?
Canada is bringing in hundreds of thousands of immigrants per year, and the total population is growing at something like 1 million more people per year. Each one of those people becomes one of the most energy-using people on the planet, partially because the North American lifestyle is wasteful, partially because Canada is insanely cold half the year and requires massive energy for heating. Every new Canadian, whether a birth or an immigrant makes the world’s CO2 footprint much bigger. Maybe Canada should start shrinking and not growing, and the population should move to places where such a massively energy intensive lifestyle is not necessary.
Articles like this always seem like they’re people looking for a way to shift the blame to someone else. This time it’s the billionaires. Other times it has been corporations. People never take responsibility for their own lives.
Im mostly commenting so I can use this to remind myself later to research it, but I wonder which would be better enviromentally? Living in a cold place that requires heating 6 months of the year, or AC?
there are about 3000 billionaires, if they generate a million people’s world of CO2 each, that’s the pollution of 3 billion people!!! about half the world population.
even ignoring their lobbying, just snapping them away Thanos style would mean more co2 saving than eliminating any single industry.
Mary Antoinette them is likely not the solution, better to regulate them and tax them out of existence. or Antoinette then if they keep fighting to kill us all.
Which is why I doubt that that’s true. For it to be true, you’d probably have to do some kind of calculation like “if this privately owned company is owned by a billionaire, then assign all CO2 emissions from its entire operations to that one individual”. So, if you eliminated them, you actually wouldn’t eliminate those CO2 emissions. Someone would take over that business and it would continue putting out CO2 as long as someone was buying its products and/or services.
The science is available for you to double check the math and methods. Go do that and show us your findings if you dispute the results instead of baselessly assuming it isn’t true because it doesn’t fit your preconceived assumptions.
It’s likely that the “million times more than the average person” includes the CO2 emissions from their stocks. still, making them scared is the easiest way to stop them from burning the planet where I live.
But you’re not going to make them scared by publishing made up news stories like this. What will make them scared is politicians who they haven’t bought being in power.
We’re getting there. one Mamdani/Kat at a time.
Without billionaires the oil lobby wouldn’t exist
A lot of the “oil lobby” is suburban dwellers who rely on their cars for everything and oppose anything transportation-related that isn’t a subsidy for cars and roads.
Without the oil and motor lobby, normal people wouldn’t drive a car every day.