A new study found that the top 10% of households responsible for 40% of U.S. greenhouse ga

[LiberaBlueDem]

The study also identified racial inequities in how different groups are responsible for carbon emissions, reporting that Black households, on average, have a carbon footprint of 19 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent from both supplier and producer emissions. In comparison, White Hispanic households show slightly higher emissions with 26 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent from suppliers and 25 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent from producers but the most significant emissions can be observed within White non-Hispanic households. They have 40 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent from suppliers and 36 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent from producers.


https://www.salon.com/2023/08/22/how-wealthy-super-emitters-are-disproportionately-driving-the-climate--while-blaming-you/

[LiberaBlueDem]

1. It ain't your fault, unless you are a 1%er

I doubt anyone reading this is.

The 1%ers control the government and have kept government from controlling them as they willy nilly spew their pollution across the planet.

[hunter]

3. Hate to break it to you, but all affluent North Americans are 1%ers by global standards.

It's your standing among all 8 billion humans that matters, not your standing in the U.S.A. or any other wealthy nation.

It's almost impossible for an affluent person to reduce their environmental footprint. If they are not burning fossil fuels one way, they are burning them another every time they spend or invest their money.

The people with the smallest environmental footprints generally live in cities, don't own cars, don't eat much meat, and have very low incomes by North American standards.

Imagine some "head of household" living in Cairo, Mumbai, or any other similar megacity making $90 a month. They and the families they support have a very small environmental footprint.

Personally, the smallest environmental footprint I ever had was as a mentally ill dumpster diving homeless guy. It's not a lifestyle I'd ever advocate or hope to return to, but the possibility is always there in the back of my mind.

When my wife and I are in good health we are affluent. When we are not, random shit falling out of the sky, all hell breaks loose. (My wife once ran a COBRA health plan to the bitter end in the midst of chemo. Before Obamacare there were times we were both uninsurable.)

We all ought to be finding ways to lift everyone out of poverty on a global scale, ways that don't increase the demand for fossil fuels.

Blaming the 1%ers isn't helpful, especially when we are among them.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo_%28comic_strip%29

[LiberaBlueDem]

4. This report is USA based

The top 10%ers of the USA produce 40% of the USA emissions.
They also own the government which has been in deep denial. They are who we can blame for Global Warming.

[LiberaBlueDem]

5. Prime example of a 1%er

Trump. Private jet, several mansions. Convoys wherever he goes.

[hunter]

7. Moma nature don't care about "USA based."

That's what I'm saying.

Anytime you like you can quit your job that's not making the world a better place, quit paying your utility bills and pull their meters, and pour sand in the engine of your car.

You can burn any dollars you make.

Then what?

[LiberaBlueDem]

8. But if trump and all the others like him did what you suggest,

The co2 levels would drop

The USA is to blame for over half the co2 now. I get why some want to deny that but they are just deniers and not worthy of our time, are they?

[BlueIn_W_Pa]

9. The US can't move the needle on CO2

in CO2 rough annual emissions?
US 15%
APAC 80%
China has surpassed the US 20 yrs ago, and are double the US today
China burns more coal than the rest of the planet put together

The US alone can't do anything to stop CO2 levels from rising. China and India will dwarf anything we can stop.

https://ourworldindata.org/exports/annual-co2-emissions-per-country_v46_850x600.svg

[LiberaBlueDem]

12. If I did not know better

I would say it seems the two of you are supporters of trump's overconsumption.

Thing is the whole world wants to live like trump and that is why the planet has become polluted.

But why should the USA stop polluting? Looks like some of you are in denial about the US pollution?

[BlueIn_W_Pa]

13. For crying out loud

"supporters of trump's overconsumption"? Really?

That's not what was said or implied. Local efforts against pollution makes every sense in the world, locally. Efforts to become more efficient, of course. Move to more nuclear and renewables, yes.

But to deny the fact that the US alone, or our trump overconsumption has power in our control with respect to global climate change or the melting of the polar caps is intentionally defying proven science and simple math.

Throwing buckets of water off the titanic, I'm sure, made people feel good, and born scorn on those who didn't help. I'm also sure you can calculate the extremely small impact that did to slow the sinking so yes, they "did something" - but it still sank.

[LiberaBlueDem]

16. Just imagine a China official

Looking at the USA and see its leader (former) as one who is to blame for the excess co2, and then see some Americans blaming China while sayng trump had nothing to do with it.

The sooner we take responsibility for American co2, the sooner that China says okay, lets follow that.

Instead, what I am reading here is utter denial!

[BlueIn_W_Pa]

17. So you're saying Trump is responsible for excess CO2?

You seriously think China would do that?

Respectfully, you really need to read more, because you're grossly wrong with both statements, and is contrary to science and basic math.

just some guidance:
* China alone passed the US in CO2 20 years ago
* China alone has 2.5 times the CO2 rate of the US today
* China burns more dirty coal than the rest of the planet put together
* the US is 15% of global CO2
* there is no way on God's green earth China will suddenly have an epiphany like you say. International studies courses can help there

[BlueIn_W_Pa]

10. Exactly

Mother Nature doesn't give one damn about "per capita" CO2 emissions.

[BlueIn_W_Pa]

11. "We all ought to be finding ways to lift everyone out of poverty on a global scale"

without cheap oil?

Impossible. The only reason there are an additional 6 billion people since 1900 is solely due to cheap oil.

Without cheap oil, life will get bad for those 6 billion. The energy density of oil is something like 2 quadrillion times what solar is. Onlt thing coming close is nuclear.

[hunter]

14. I'm an unapologetic advocate for nuclear power these days.

What's the energy density of uranium compared to oil?

Oil isn't even in the same ballpark.

Nuclear power directly threatens the fossil fuel industry. It's the only energy resource capable of displacing fossil fuels entirely.

We ought to be building nuclear power plants as quickly as we can, including power plants capable of synthesizing carbon-neutral liquid fuels from oceanic or atmospheric carbon dioxide.

It's not a new idea. France built nuclear power plants and were able to close their last coal mine two decades ago. In terms of electricity production France is consistently among the "greener" nations in Europe.

https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/FR

Anti-nuclear Germany on the other hand, apparently governed by fossil fuel opportunists and innumerate romanticists, is a high carbon intensity hot mess.

[BlueIn_W_Pa]

15. 1000% with you

Westinghouse has their main HQ here north of Pittsburgh, and it's their AP1000 unit that just turned online in the Carolinas - though China already had 4 and I think Poland had 1 running already.

We're behind...

[Chainfire]

2. They are idiots. The supremacy of the Federal Government was established in 1865.

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. See discussion here

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1127166718