Unless the bottom 90% wants to and does establish common ownership and democratic control of the collective product of labour and natural resources and then distribute wealth on the basis of need, as opposed to the quantity of cash the individual has possession of, we'll need a progressive tax on the wealth of the upper 10% to provide the necessary revenue to both deal with the climate crisis and to fund public education, health and welfare needs of humanity.
Outstanding post - you have put your finger on the very heart of the problem of carbon emissions. Elsewhere I have argued that "living standards" are a ratchet – they move easily upwards, but not downwards. People are extremely reluctant to give up luxuries that have become necessities, and when they do – during a pandemic for example – they will indulge in a binge to make up for their sacrifice. In a recent paper Beatriz Barros and I have argued that "carbon shaming" might be a start at bringing public attention to the damage caused by wealth; we also need to attack conspicuous philanthropy and carbon offsetting, the two devices used by billionaires to justify their own profligate pollution of the planet. There is a growing literature on billionaires, and I hope to see more research and writing on exactly these topics.
I have no idea what a “restack” is, but, here goes. It may be true that, “For one reason or another, more than three quarters of Americans between 17 and 24 now fall short of the Pentagon’s standards”, but what standards does donning a suicide vest require? Something the Pentagoners forgot to ask themselves before the so called Forever War was started, and let’s be honest, lost, by most historical standards of success in State Warfare. This despite entering the “Forever War[s?]” secondary to hijackers turning civilian jetliners into giant flying suicide vests with seatbelts. What standards are required to traverse Canada starting forest fires (if the reports of arson are to believed)? Trump, born with a platinum plated golden spoon in his mouth, lived a life of luxury in a system that allowed him to get away with a lifetime of crimes, a system that gave him more second chances and deferrals than Motel-6 has bedbugs, and this is the schmuck that announces he will institute a totalitarian state when re-elected starting with abolishing the Justice Department! All because of some supposed terrible grievances he must bear?!?! What a pathetic spoiled demented man-child. Apparently, those are all the "standards" now required to bring the U.S. Military, sworn to up hold the American Constitution, to it's knees when confronted by an authentic and blatantly obvious authoritarian threat. At least Hitler actually fought in the trenches of War for masters that viewed him as nothing more than cannon fodder. That’s the stuff of a bonafide grievance. Meanwhile, the ide[o|a]logically blinkered dimwits calling themselves big-Democrats still don’t get what Tubbyville down in AL is up to! The big-Dijits still don’t recognize a litmus test when it spits in their faces. The big-Dimwits have learned nothing from the reactionary mind’s capture of the Supreme Court. Spell it out? Ok. Tuberman of Alabammy is beginning the process of ‘seeding’ the potential future members of the Chiefs of Staff with militarists who will realize in no uncertain terms that they owe their position to the now inescapably Political stance on abortion they must adhere to if they’re to advance up the U.S. Chain-of-Command. Based on the currently near absolute silent acquiescence of the other Republican Senators, and taking into account the events surrounding Trump’s time in and out of elected office, it is reasonable to assume only pro-lifers need apply for high-level military promotions in a Republican Ruled Senate going forward. That one binary data point, for or against, will be enough to start the usurping process. The Reactionary-Political Mind will not stop until the upper-ranks are de-Milleyfied. Democracy is wasted on both the Big-R and Big-D. The reasons may be different but the results are converging. Dots not connected are dots wasted.
... Ha! So a "Note" is not a "Comment" it seems. I haven't poked around here in what seems like dog-months so when I couldn't figure what happened to "Comments", as I once knew them, I had to cast a "Note" out and then follow it to uncover where the Comments were now hiding. Whew. My version of iOS/Safari is getting so flakey I never can be sure what is happening when webpage code changes. In any event, I still don't know what Notes are and I'm fine with that. Probably even prefer it that way. Now I see the Note trail led me back to a different Chartbook. What flustercuck. Anyway, at least it is good for a laugh.
Fantastic read. Basically, the Americans need to cut their emissions significantly on a per-person basis while China needs to adopt a big reduction that likely pushes the provincial governments to do more and stop looking the other way on pollution.
This is great data, and great analysis and presentation.
However, I think you if you want equality, you must be for population control.
Your charts show the "middle class" as being about 40% of the world, generating about 50% of the carbon. Other data I have seen show it as 40 and 40, so the middle class creates carbon proportionate to the population.
So, equality would demand that we redistribute the wealth and consumption of the top 10% to the bottom 50%, which would raise them up to the level of the middle class. |
This is a wholesome goal.
But that would mean that our carbon output does not change, it just shifts around, leaving us in the same spot with a rapidly heating planet.
So for population to not matter, we would need the poor to stay poor, which is probably the plan but is not actually ethical.
The only other option is fantastical—we will reduce consumption and redesign systems!
Sounds great. We just aren't showing any sign of doing it.
Will the anthropological shock of anticipatory climate catastrophe drive cosmopolitan bourgeois consensus towards change? Beyond the problems of coordination and collective intelligence, I am continuously reminded of Ulrich Beck's work on global risks to illustrate the increasing irrelevancy of national units in solving global problems.
There is still hope, however, but we need a global price on carbon! That we still cant agree on waving vaccine patents is discouraging, however, work on the global minimum tax does give us some examples.
According to “Release of carbon dioxide by individual humans” (Release of carbon dioxide by individual humans | GLOBE Scientists' Blog) a human being at rest breathing in half a liter16 times per minute corresponds to the human being breathing out a net amount of about 0.9 kg per day of CO2, or 328.5 kg of CO2 per year. Thus, for a world population of about 7,317,000,000 in 2015 (from Table 2), the amount of CO2 released for all humans at rest was about 2.65 gt/yr.
According to “Fundamentals of Industrial Hygiene” by B A Plog, J Nilland, P J Quinlan (Fourth Edition) page 45, humans may intake up to 120 liters per minute during vigorous exertion, or 7.5 times as much as when at rest: or up to about 20 gt/yr of CO2 released by ALL humans.
Additionally, 1ppm of CO2 corresponds to about 7.82 gt of CO2 in the atmosphere, and CO2 is increasing by about 2ppm/yr, or 15.64 gt/yr (Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia). In other words, only about 44% of the 35.5 gt emitted by human activities stayed in the atmosphere.
The article fails to mention deforestation and the increase in land use for human habitation due to population growth, both of which decrease the amount of CO2 which is consumed by vegetation.
It is obvious that the more affluent “generate” more CO2. And population growth exacerbates pollution (in my opinion, CO2 is NOT a pollutant) of our biosphere by myriads of industrial manufacturing processes and the use of fossil fuels.
Thus, the real problem appears to clearly be OVERPOPULATION, not mentioned in the article either.
This does beg the question, what are the coordinating mechanisms of the global bourgeoisie? Doug Henwood wrote a long piece for Jacobin recently examining the coordinating mechanisms of the aristocracy or "ruling class," but I think the answer is going to be slightly different for the bourgeoisie, not to mention the questions raised by the essential analysis here on the global character of emissions inequality, which are as skewed inside countries as they are between countries.
Unless the bottom 90% wants to and does establish common ownership and democratic control of the collective product of labour and natural resources and then distribute wealth on the basis of need, as opposed to the quantity of cash the individual has possession of, we'll need a progressive tax on the wealth of the upper 10% to provide the necessary revenue to both deal with the climate crisis and to fund public education, health and welfare needs of humanity.
You might be interested in Ivan Illich's "Energy and Equity" if you haven't read it already.
Outstanding post - you have put your finger on the very heart of the problem of carbon emissions. Elsewhere I have argued that "living standards" are a ratchet – they move easily upwards, but not downwards. People are extremely reluctant to give up luxuries that have become necessities, and when they do – during a pandemic for example – they will indulge in a binge to make up for their sacrifice. In a recent paper Beatriz Barros and I have argued that "carbon shaming" might be a start at bringing public attention to the damage caused by wealth; we also need to attack conspicuous philanthropy and carbon offsetting, the two devices used by billionaires to justify their own profligate pollution of the planet. There is a growing literature on billionaires, and I hope to see more research and writing on exactly these topics.
I have no idea what a “restack” is, but, here goes. It may be true that, “For one reason or another, more than three quarters of Americans between 17 and 24 now fall short of the Pentagon’s standards”, but what standards does donning a suicide vest require? Something the Pentagoners forgot to ask themselves before the so called Forever War was started, and let’s be honest, lost, by most historical standards of success in State Warfare. This despite entering the “Forever War[s?]” secondary to hijackers turning civilian jetliners into giant flying suicide vests with seatbelts. What standards are required to traverse Canada starting forest fires (if the reports of arson are to believed)? Trump, born with a platinum plated golden spoon in his mouth, lived a life of luxury in a system that allowed him to get away with a lifetime of crimes, a system that gave him more second chances and deferrals than Motel-6 has bedbugs, and this is the schmuck that announces he will institute a totalitarian state when re-elected starting with abolishing the Justice Department! All because of some supposed terrible grievances he must bear?!?! What a pathetic spoiled demented man-child. Apparently, those are all the "standards" now required to bring the U.S. Military, sworn to up hold the American Constitution, to it's knees when confronted by an authentic and blatantly obvious authoritarian threat. At least Hitler actually fought in the trenches of War for masters that viewed him as nothing more than cannon fodder. That’s the stuff of a bonafide grievance. Meanwhile, the ide[o|a]logically blinkered dimwits calling themselves big-Democrats still don’t get what Tubbyville down in AL is up to! The big-Dijits still don’t recognize a litmus test when it spits in their faces. The big-Dimwits have learned nothing from the reactionary mind’s capture of the Supreme Court. Spell it out? Ok. Tuberman of Alabammy is beginning the process of ‘seeding’ the potential future members of the Chiefs of Staff with militarists who will realize in no uncertain terms that they owe their position to the now inescapably Political stance on abortion they must adhere to if they’re to advance up the U.S. Chain-of-Command. Based on the currently near absolute silent acquiescence of the other Republican Senators, and taking into account the events surrounding Trump’s time in and out of elected office, it is reasonable to assume only pro-lifers need apply for high-level military promotions in a Republican Ruled Senate going forward. That one binary data point, for or against, will be enough to start the usurping process. The Reactionary-Political Mind will not stop until the upper-ranks are de-Milleyfied. Democracy is wasted on both the Big-R and Big-D. The reasons may be different but the results are converging. Dots not connected are dots wasted.
... Ha! So a "Note" is not a "Comment" it seems. I haven't poked around here in what seems like dog-months so when I couldn't figure what happened to "Comments", as I once knew them, I had to cast a "Note" out and then follow it to uncover where the Comments were now hiding. Whew. My version of iOS/Safari is getting so flakey I never can be sure what is happening when webpage code changes. In any event, I still don't know what Notes are and I'm fine with that. Probably even prefer it that way. Now I see the Note trail led me back to a different Chartbook. What flustercuck. Anyway, at least it is good for a laugh.
Fantastic read. Basically, the Americans need to cut their emissions significantly on a per-person basis while China needs to adopt a big reduction that likely pushes the provincial governments to do more and stop looking the other way on pollution.
This is great data, and great analysis and presentation.
However, I think you if you want equality, you must be for population control.
Your charts show the "middle class" as being about 40% of the world, generating about 50% of the carbon. Other data I have seen show it as 40 and 40, so the middle class creates carbon proportionate to the population.
So, equality would demand that we redistribute the wealth and consumption of the top 10% to the bottom 50%, which would raise them up to the level of the middle class. |
This is a wholesome goal.
But that would mean that our carbon output does not change, it just shifts around, leaving us in the same spot with a rapidly heating planet.
So for population to not matter, we would need the poor to stay poor, which is probably the plan but is not actually ethical.
The only other option is fantastical—we will reduce consumption and redesign systems!
Sounds great. We just aren't showing any sign of doing it.
Will the anthropological shock of anticipatory climate catastrophe drive cosmopolitan bourgeois consensus towards change? Beyond the problems of coordination and collective intelligence, I am continuously reminded of Ulrich Beck's work on global risks to illustrate the increasing irrelevancy of national units in solving global problems.
There is still hope, however, but we need a global price on carbon! That we still cant agree on waving vaccine patents is discouraging, however, work on the global minimum tax does give us some examples.
A few comments:
According to “Release of carbon dioxide by individual humans” (Release of carbon dioxide by individual humans | GLOBE Scientists' Blog) a human being at rest breathing in half a liter16 times per minute corresponds to the human being breathing out a net amount of about 0.9 kg per day of CO2, or 328.5 kg of CO2 per year. Thus, for a world population of about 7,317,000,000 in 2015 (from Table 2), the amount of CO2 released for all humans at rest was about 2.65 gt/yr.
According to “Fundamentals of Industrial Hygiene” by B A Plog, J Nilland, P J Quinlan (Fourth Edition) page 45, humans may intake up to 120 liters per minute during vigorous exertion, or 7.5 times as much as when at rest: or up to about 20 gt/yr of CO2 released by ALL humans.
Additionally, 1ppm of CO2 corresponds to about 7.82 gt of CO2 in the atmosphere, and CO2 is increasing by about 2ppm/yr, or 15.64 gt/yr (Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia). In other words, only about 44% of the 35.5 gt emitted by human activities stayed in the atmosphere.
The article fails to mention deforestation and the increase in land use for human habitation due to population growth, both of which decrease the amount of CO2 which is consumed by vegetation.
It is obvious that the more affluent “generate” more CO2. And population growth exacerbates pollution (in my opinion, CO2 is NOT a pollutant) of our biosphere by myriads of industrial manufacturing processes and the use of fossil fuels.
Thus, the real problem appears to clearly be OVERPOPULATION, not mentioned in the article either.
This does beg the question, what are the coordinating mechanisms of the global bourgeoisie? Doug Henwood wrote a long piece for Jacobin recently examining the coordinating mechanisms of the aristocracy or "ruling class," but I think the answer is going to be slightly different for the bourgeoisie, not to mention the questions raised by the essential analysis here on the global character of emissions inequality, which are as skewed inside countries as they are between countries.