America’s wealthiest people are also some of the world’s biggest polluters – not only because of their massive homes and private jets, but because of the fossil fuels generated by the companies they invest their money in.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    America’s wealthiest people are also some of the world’s biggest polluters – not only because of their massive homes and private jets, but because of the fossil fuels generated by the companies they invest their money in.

    That gave a carbon footprint for each dollar of economic activity in the US, which the researchers linked to households using population survey data that showed the industries people work for and their income from wages and investments.

    The report also identified “super-emitters.” They are almost exclusively among the wealthiest top 0.1% of Americans, concentrated in industries such as finance, insurance and mining, and produce around 3,000 tons of carbon pollution a year.

    Kimberly Nicholas, associate professor of sustainability science at Lund University in Sweden, who was not involved in the report, said the study helps reveal how closely income, especially from investments, is tied to planet-heating pollution.

    Sometimes when people talk about ways to tackle the climate crisis, they bring up population control, said Mark Paul, a political economist at Rutgers University who was also not involved in the study.

    Globally, the planet-heating pollution produced by billionaires is a million times higher than the average person outside the world’s wealthiest 10%, according to a report last year from the nonprofit Oxfam.


    I’m a bot and I’m open source!

    • TheDarkKnight@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wouldn’t insurance be one of the lowest carbon footprints? They don’t really make or manufacture anything, minimal fleet presence (like adjusters cars and what not, not like delivery trucks or semis)?

      I could see their investments maybe being problematic by investing in other companies that are heavy polluters, but idk maybe I’m missing something? Seems like they wouldn’t have much of a footprint compared to others at their size and scale.

      • explodicle@local106.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’d like to buy carbon emission insurance. If it stays above safe levels, I get paid. If it goes below safe levels, I pay them. They adjust rates offered based on its likelihood. Then they’d have a strong incentive to fund various activities to reduce pollution.

    • bmovement@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s a strange accounting method, that almost completely reflects wealth distribution and ignores carbon.

      For instance, you might say childhood obesity is a problem, then measure people’s investments in fast food as a measure of their contribution to the problem. And find that it’s the same people at fault, at almost the exact same percentage!