I think it's pretty self explanatory but ok: in this case pushing a political agenda via an environmental concern.
The problem with this is a lot of people don't agree with this political agenda but do understand the real problem of climate change. It would probably serve the environmental cause to not mix the two together.
Now this group of people who are all about environment but also think that inequality is fine (presumably because they are on top of it) will hopefully realize that these issues turn out to be connected in interesting ways ;)
It didn't say that, it said: "A less discussed but faster-growing problem is inequality within countries.". The reports linked in the article show the growing inequality, please feel free to present your sources showing otherwise.
They could report any number of facts if they wanted. They could spend all day writing about what their dog had for lunch today and it would be purely factual. They only include specific facts for a reason. They could probably do an analysis and find that e.g. gay people cause a disproportionate amount of carbon emissions (which they do, since they're far more likely to live in higher-income economies) but never would since that's homophobic.
_Openly_ gay people, possibly. Within an economy you could make the opposite point - openly gay people are underrepresented in the economic and political elites.
IMO it's because the stock photo of "the 1%" is a superyacht or a private jet, which makes people like HNers think that they themselves are far below the threshold.
A private jet in the case of this article. I bet that's not how HNers would illustrate us as a group. Quite a nasty rhetorical trick, really.
> They must be happy they managed to get a ‘white man bad’ comment in there.
They also dedicated a whole article to complaining that it's whites doing the most for environmental movements. Their conclusion is always the same, no matter the facts.
Why are so many white men trying to save the planet without the rest of us? Climate change affects minorities and women, the elderly and the poor. But the leadership of the environmental movement is pale and male. That doesn't look like progress - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/08/white-...
Yeah it's totally fine that a group of people that took upon itself to get everyone else to not take airplanes to not eat meat to buy less to recycle more etc. also turns out to be polluting the most...
The fact that you’re willing to stigmatise the people trying to make a difference just because theyre white and male is exactly why racist rhetoric is bad
When you point out that some minority is committing most of the crimes it doesn't make you racist if it helps you solve the problem of crime.
If you point out those at the top of increasingly inequal world are of one race and gender it's not racist or sexist if it helps you solve the problem of inequality.
Labeling things that are inconvenient for you as "racist" is lazy.
Much of environmentalism is aimed at developed, mostly white countries. You frame it as whites lecturing others, but much of it is whites lecturing other whites.
Any tortured logic will do, so long as it finds the right culprit.
Totally. No one is shaming developing countries for burning coal and Taiwan with its insanely strict and unforgiving recycling and trash collection policy is oh so very white and developed.
The truth is that it's important to not pollute but if it turns out that its main preachers both pollute the most and conspicuously fall in the same gender-racial category then it undermines the whole point since people world over would rightfully be cynical about the idea
> No one is shaming developing countries for burning coal
I deliberately said "much", not "all". You want them to completely ignore the developing world, that, unlike during the industrial revolution, has wind and solar options, even as they preach for the West to have even fewer children, despite already having sub-replacement fertility?
In any case, this is tangential to blaming whites for the inaction of non-whites - despite the article's framing, environmental activism is not a scarce resource that whites have monopolized - anyone can do it.
I’m all in favour of lowering emissions for the 1% but it’s a strange place to draw the line when their calculations suggest ~70% of emissions come from “the Everyman” that is 1st-33rd percentile. Cheap and plentiful access to lower carbon technology will be 4x the impact of focusing on the top percentile alone, even if it doesn’t fit the narrative.
Personally, I believe that those with the capability to do so are obliged to make ecological purchasing decisions (I hold myself to this standard) so I’m not trying to pass the buck either.
1. So no ban? SF to NY is about 2900 miles. Wikipedia says "Generally, trade-in vehicles must get a weighted combined average rating of 18 or fewer miles per gallon" to qualify for the Car Allowance Rebate System. The EPA says there's about 8.9kg of co2 per gallon of gas, which means driving such a distance would emit approximately 1434kg of carbon. On the other hand Google flights says the same trip by direct flight only emits around 400kg, depending on the airline.
2. I'm not really sure why a ban is needed when mandated sequestration will have the same effect, and won't kill half the travel industry.
> The EPA says there's about 8.9kg of co2 per gallon of gas, which means driving such a distance would emit approximately 1434kg of carbon. On the other hand Google flights says the same trip by direct flight only emits around 400kg, depending on the airline.
There is no law concerning the emission of CO2 from old trucks. Look into the laws governing emissions and fuel economy on old trucks. What's good dirty for old trucks is good for shiny new aircraft.
> I'm not really sure why a ban is needed when mandated sequestration will have the same effect, and won't kill half the travel industry.
Say you're in the 1% without saying your in the 1% by claiming aviation is "half the travel industry."
The study doesn't blame the pollution on jets. It says it is from industry, and since the rich own stock in companies, they blame the companies pollution on the rich who own equity. dumb and deceptive article
The report itself is fine, but the article is misleading, sort of implying that it's those billionaire's lifestyles that are ruining the climate for everyone else. But only in the end, it outlines, _how_ they do it, arguably with less attention than it deserves.
Having read the report, the overwhelming proportion of CO2 is generated with so-called "Polluting shares", basically, stock in polluting companies.
Guess what, that means we need to adress those companies' CO2 output, not private jets and yachts.
That makes solving said problem a whole lot more complicated than eating the rich, though.
Those are out of sight out of mind companies
As long as those rare earth mines are in Africa and they are assembled in China it doesn't count as environmental damage. It's only if those mines or factories are in our country do we need to shut them down for the sake of the Earth
They should look at net pollutants produced. If someone "emits" X pollutants per year, but they cure the pollutant ebola, the two numbers should be subtracted to get the individual's net contribution to the planet.
Last week over the span of 2 days at least 106 private jets carrying 2-12 people each flew in to Las Vegas - rich folk heading in to watch F1.
I’d like to see Democrats ask their wealthy donors to give that up.
"The corporate shares of many super-rich are highly polluting." this article is deceptive. What is the suggested solution here, those companies shouldn't exist? If the companies were owned by the average person would that somehow make them pollute less? This article opens with a picture of a private jet like that is the cause of this pollution, that their extravagance is polluting the planet.
"‘Polluter elite’ are plundering the planet to point of destruction" I guess I should have realized this article had problems from that first line.
"Despite being massive, the personal consumption of the super-rich is dwarfed by
emissions resulting from their investments in companies.17 Investments of the top 1%
are estimated to account for between 50% and 70% of their emissions.18"
Their source is equally bad, and I have no faith even in that number. I see double counting too, if you blame pollution for buying a car on the customer, and blame that same pollution on the person who owns the shares of the company that made it, you are double counting.
44 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 88.1 ms ] threadWhat a strange way to phrase ‘reported a fact’.
The problem with this is a lot of people don't agree with this political agenda but do understand the real problem of climate change. It would probably serve the environmental cause to not mix the two together.
What political agenda do you think is being pushed here?
I guess it depends on which facts are truthier.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_...
A private jet in the case of this article. I bet that's not how HNers would illustrate us as a group. Quite a nasty rhetorical trick, really.
They also dedicated a whole article to complaining that it's whites doing the most for environmental movements. Their conclusion is always the same, no matter the facts.
Why are so many white men trying to save the planet without the rest of us? Climate change affects minorities and women, the elderly and the poor. But the leadership of the environmental movement is pale and male. That doesn't look like progress - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/08/white-...
If you point out those at the top of increasingly inequal world are of one race and gender it's not racist or sexist if it helps you solve the problem of inequality.
Labeling things that are inconvenient for you as "racist" is lazy.
Any tortured logic will do, so long as it finds the right culprit.
The truth is that it's important to not pollute but if it turns out that its main preachers both pollute the most and conspicuously fall in the same gender-racial category then it undermines the whole point since people world over would rightfully be cynical about the idea
I deliberately said "much", not "all". You want them to completely ignore the developing world, that, unlike during the industrial revolution, has wind and solar options, even as they preach for the West to have even fewer children, despite already having sub-replacement fertility?
In any case, this is tangential to blaming whites for the inaction of non-whites - despite the article's framing, environmental activism is not a scarce resource that whites have monopolized - anyone can do it.
Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-...
Having a child is the grandest act of climate destruction - https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/having-a-child-is-the-gr...
Science proves kids are bad for Earth. Morality suggests we stop having them. - https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/science-proves-kids-ar...
BirthStrike: The people refusing to have kids, because of ‘the ecological crisis’ - https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/05/health/birthstrike-climat...
Climate change is making people think twice about having children - https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/12/climate-change-is-making-peo...
Would you give up having children to save the planet? Meet the couples who have - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/20/give-up-having...
A World Without Children - A generation facing an intractable problem debates whether to bring a new generation into the world. - https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/09/millenn...
No Children Because of Climate Change? Some People Are Considering It - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/climate/climate-change-ch...
Personally, I believe that those with the capability to do so are obliged to make ecological purchasing decisions (I hold myself to this standard) so I’m not trying to pass the buck either.
2. I'm not really sure why a ban is needed when mandated sequestration will have the same effect, and won't kill half the travel industry.
If your jet engine does not have a catalytic converter, it must not fly. What's good for old trucks is good for aircraft.
If for airplane burns leaded fuel, it must not fly.
If your airplane does not meet CAFE standards, it must not fly without paying fines.
Here are a few of the standards: https://www.epa.gov/emission-standards-reference-guide/epa-e...
There is no law concerning the emission of CO2 from old trucks. Look into the laws governing emissions and fuel economy on old trucks. What's good dirty for old trucks is good for shiny new aircraft.
> I'm not really sure why a ban is needed when mandated sequestration will have the same effect, and won't kill half the travel industry.
Say you're in the 1% without saying your in the 1% by claiming aviation is "half the travel industry."
The report itself is fine, but the article is misleading, sort of implying that it's those billionaire's lifestyles that are ruining the climate for everyone else. But only in the end, it outlines, _how_ they do it, arguably with less attention than it deserves.
Having read the report, the overwhelming proportion of CO2 is generated with so-called "Polluting shares", basically, stock in polluting companies.
Guess what, that means we need to adress those companies' CO2 output, not private jets and yachts. That makes solving said problem a whole lot more complicated than eating the rich, though.
What about Republican's wealthy donors, or Green's wealthy donors? Or are you suggesting this is just a problem with the others?
"‘Polluter elite’ are plundering the planet to point of destruction" I guess I should have realized this article had problems from that first line.
Their source is equally bad, and I have no faith even in that number. I see double counting too, if you blame pollution for buying a car on the customer, and blame that same pollution on the person who owns the shares of the company that made it, you are double counting.