We can't have billionaires and stop climate change

[PETRUS]

(an article in The Correspondent by Jason Hickel)

some snips:

When it comes to ecological impact, we know that the richer you are, the more damage you do. This pattern is evident across a wide range of indicators. Take carbon dioxide emissions, for example – the main gas that causes global warming. The richest 10% of the world’s population is responsible for more than half the world’s total carbon emissions since 1990. That’s a staggering figure. A small portion of humanity is consuming the atmosphere that we all rely on. And things become even more lopsided as we climb the income ladder. The richest 1% emit one hundred times more than people in the poorest half of the human population.

Why is this? According to recent research published by scientists at the University of Leeds, it’s not only that rich people consume more stuff than everybody else, but also because the stuff they consume is more energy-intensive: huge houses, big cars, private jets, business-class flights, long-distance holidays, luxury imports and so on. And it’s not only their consumption that matters – it’s also their investments. When the rich have more money than they can possibly spend, which is virtually always the case, they tend to invest the excess in expansionary industries that are quite often ecologically destructive, like fossil fuels and mining.

(snip)

The richest 5% (whose average income is $100,000 per year) capture no less than 46% of global income. In other words, half of all our economic activity – all the mines, all the factories, all the power stations, all the shipping, and all of the ecological impact that’s associated with these things – is done to make rich people richer. The next time someone tells you that we need economic growth in order to improve people’s lives, it’s worth remembering whose lives are really being improved...

more at the link (including references to source material): https://thecorrespondent.com/728/we-cant-have-billionaires-and-stop-climate-change/842640975176-f7bab0dc

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

1. We can't have billionaires and democracy, either.

But, even most Dems don't get that.

[PETRUS]

3. As Louis Brandeis put it:

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

6. There you go.

Not least because great wealth allows individuals or tiny cabals of them to buy politicians.

A lot more Rs would be in jail if:
1. They didn't have enough influence over lawmakers to make the harmful stuff they legal.
and
2. They couldn't afford to outlawyer everyone else.

[Shermann]

2. The richest 5% average a lot more than $100,000 / year nt

[PETRUS]

4. Global averages

$100k in annual income puts you "only" in the top 40% in the US, but a much higher bracket worldwide.

[Shermann]

5. I see! Well I feel a little richer today. nt

[Boomer]

7. We can't have children and stop climate change

People are more than willing to sacrifice our billionaires but they scream bloody murder if you mention they importance of lowering our population numbers.

[PETRUS]

8. I'm in partial agreement.

All else equal, a larger population will exert greater demands on natural resources. But the fact of the matter is that it's a small fraction of the world's people that are the main drivers of climate change and ecological breakdown. I've read more than one academic paper that provides evidence that it's possible to support a global population of around 10 billion people without overshooting ecological limits (I posted one of them recently here: https://www.democraticunderground.com/1127140679).

In general, fertility rates decline when women are afforded better educational and other opportunities (including access to contraception and family planning services). Addressing the problem of sexism is worthy all on its own, and if it also helps slow or reverse population growth, so much the better. But the size of the global population is not the biggest problem (with respect to climate change), and I think it would be a tactical error to prioritize that over addressing structural issues.