How the rich wreck the climate (and how to stop them)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 тра 2024
- Private jets. Mega-yachts. Helicopters. Mansions. The luxury lifestyles of the ultra-rich are pumping our air full of pollutants. So how do we clean them up - and why is progress so slow?
Credits
Reporter: Ajit Niranjan
Video Editor: Nils Reinecke
Supervising editor: Malte Rohwer-Kahlmann, Kiyo Dörrer
We're destroying our environment at an alarming rate. But it doesn't need to be this way. Our new channel Planet A explores the shift towards an eco-friendly world - and challenges our ideas about what dealing with climate change means. We look at the big and the small: What we can do and how the system needs to change. Every Friday we'll take a truly global look at how to get us out of this mess.
Read more:
Billionaire emissions: www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/1...
Carbon inequality: wir2022.wid.world/www-site/up...
How the 1% can help: www.nature.com/articles/s4156...
Flights: www.sciencedirect.com/science...
Reducing demand: report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPC...
Chapters
00:00 Introduction
00:51 Billionaires
03:44 Carbon Inequality
05:19 Redistributing Wealth
06:30 Flying
09:18 Beyond consumption
10:59 Conclusion
Which income bracket do you belong to, and do you feel like you can influence the climate crisis?
we should allow people to emit co2 based off how much they contribute to the economy.
No more meat and much less animal products.
I always have mixed feelings on how much I can influence things. One the one hand, I fall above the income level that you mention for the global 1%. I KNOW that this comes with more free time which I can dedicate to causes that I care about. It also comes with an ability to spend more money on things like housing, cars, vacations, etc.
So I definitely have an ability to “vote with my wallet” and spend that money on greener alternatives such as a condo vs a SFH, a train pass rather than a car, a camping trip rather than a flight across the world, etc.
But on the other hand, my income (and personal footprint) is NOTHING compared to the Uber rich. I’ll never have enough money to influence a company or politician to change their policy as a result. So it’s hard to not feel like I’m powerless in the grand scheme of things.
If someone earning $110K lives in NYC, are they really in the top 1%? I think there there needs to be some cost of living adjustment. Anyways a carbon tax would solve the problem.
Upper middle class. Dont fly, no more unnecessary shopping.
Let's make a Forbes style rating but with CO2 emissions instead of money amount
I second thst
This!
Great idea!
but with an attached "how much they changed the worldometer?". But i doubt people would be interested in that sort of thing.
forbes would not be capable of reporting accurate figures for this.
I don't think making flights more expensive for normal people who just want to visit their family overseas is the way to go about this. More like a way for everyone to hate climate action
I understand but the situation is diabolical and middle class people are just unwilling to give up their lifestyles, even if they profess to being very 'green'.
@@greenscene5215 They're not the problem
I don't think the frequent flyer levy is a bad idea. If you are taking 12+ flights a year we aren't just talking about an odd vacation, thats excessive.
@@almamater489 Unfortunately they are. Yes, a billionaire emits maybe 100 times more CO2 flying than one middle class person per year, but thousands of middle class people emit more than one billionaire; and how many billionaires are there and how many middle class people? This is not a defence of billionaires in the slightest, just a reminder of the bigger picture. Even if all billionaires suddenly started taking regular flights, flying emissions would still be way, way above a sustainable level. Carbon levels don't care about social justice.
@@BN-ff3nw somehow i agree
CO2 shaming should be a thing
I think we should shame companies not people.People emit thousand less emissions than a corporation does
@@U38 yea but also the millionaires and billionaires
@@U38 how about a system where you pay tax per ton of co2 ? That way the poluter pays
@@U38 Can we not do both? Corporations are comprised of people after all. I just don't think its a good idea to offload the blame, even though you are right about them emitting way more. I only see us getting out of this mess if everybody takes responsibility. Otherwise you just have an endless loop of buck passing. You want to blame corporations and I agree, however they would be a lot more likely to listen if they didn't see us as hypocrites. And really that goes for anybody, or any organization you could point to.
Yes. Shame people for breathing.🙄
This one hits close to home. I'm from a Caribbean island where the only practical way to leave is via air travel. So my options are pretty much never leave the island, or never see my family. Its easy not to fly when a train can take you practically anywhere. That being said what choice do we have if we want to avoid this disaster?
You are too insignificant to even count compare to how 90% if not more do not have island problem, especially US is outrageous with their all living in one country but being lazy to develop a train lines snd using plains when it is completely unnecessary
Exceptions can always be made for those who don't have options. Why would anyone leave a Caribbean island, anyway?
When you travel commercial, the footprint isn't so large. Because a single plane carries hundreds of passengers..
Its different when a private jet is used for just 1 or a few people. And you have no other option, so you don't have to feel guilty.
Emissions from air travel is only 1.9% of all total emissions whereas road transport accounts for a whopping 11.9% of emissions. Out of air travel emissions, 89% of emission comes from passenger air travel, so air travel is not bad as you think compared to road travel.
@@ayf_ Yeah NGL the US with bullet trains would make it much richer and developed like Europe. The car industry is straight up cancer
Targeting the rich and ultra rich companies with unavoidable taxes that are enforced world wide is most likely the only way we can slow climate change enough for green technology to become a viable replacement for our current fuels. I don't think your common man has a big enough influence on the system where they should have to change their way of life to help combat climate change. The main issue though is that money is more powerful than common sense and these few extremely wealthy entities don't want to change and will just buy politicians who will protect their way of life.
Ha!
That's why I had to [begrudgingly ] acknowledge: {PROVISIONAL: }Ahh...
Finally the "Zero Tolerance®" level of hair-splitting by the Āryan State broadcaster..
...At the very spot-on bullseye.
Alas, still haven't earned the right to have "(D)(W)® Freedom" since while you felt "free" enough to casually name-deep very very very high-profile individuals..
...You still couldn't focus on the single largest carbon-emitting apparatus/institution/organisation, [as of ]yet.(
*Hint:* They're rammed right up your Āryan arsch!)
There is taxes on having a high income, globally.
Also why would this help these greener technologies? The government collects taxes and a very, very small amount goes to green energy subsidies.
What about individuals making a change in our Lifestyles? So far, we keep creating more garbage and dumping it on the Earth.
Somehow the UN manages to create an office targeting drugs and crime, but not on exorbitant wealth.
OK so they don’t avoid taxing but one thing is for sure is that when the rich get really wealthy or get a lot of money from their investments they reinvest their investments to other projects like for example think of SpaceX reinvesting on Tesla..
PhD air quality/ climate scientist here..
This isn't a popular view but individual consumption habits shouldn't be driving climate mitigation efforts - the focus should be on supply side changes. There are massive economic benefits from "green" investments - most all environmental policies pay for themselves.
Exactly.
Being efficient is cost effective and being efficient means that you're more green.
Hi, could you explain how environmental policies pay for themselves ? I would love to know more.
@@ayn8228
less used material = more money saves and less environmental damage.
I broadly agree on most issues, but private jets and large-scale recreational flying are just incompatible with net zero, in my view. It's an industry that needs to die, at least in its current form - technological solutions to eliminate the impact of flying will not come soon enough.
It would be great if governments did the killing, but failing that choosing not to fly one of the single most significant things you can choose to do to reduce carbon emissions.
@@ayn8228 Hi Ayn. So first, every climate policy pays for itself from the air quality benefits alone. There are a suite of peer-reviewed manuscripts that find this. If you look into the 1990 clean air act amendments (passed by bush sr) - he openly discusses the economic benefits of air quality improvements. The largest benefit is human health improvements - longer lives in theory means more productivity, less sick days, etc. There's also evidence that clean air improves worker's well-being (also leading to improved outputs). Imagine you're on the west coast in the US and there's been a lingering wildfire. When that happens, do you feel motivated to go to work and are in positive spirits? Or more likely, you feel sad/concerned/helpless?These are economic benefits without even touching on weather disasters (e.g., hurricanes, floods, storms, tornadoes, etc) that have been exarcebated in a changing climate. Another good example - residential rooftop solar. There is an initial upfront investment, but the payback period is somewhere between 4-8 years in the US - suggesting households will eventually make money by installing solar. Another example that is very timely - the ongoing methane regulations, which are largely targeted at plugging leaks (along pipelines or wells). If less methane is being lost along the pipeline to a powerplant, that means more methane is being used for energy production - lowering costs from energy providers. It seems common sense, but the problem has been there aren't enough resources to detect the leaks. The current admin's spending should help on that front. Hope these notes are informative
I totally agree! These rich people have the audacity to talk about climate change when they are the world’s biggest polluters.
Something that really bothers me about these tax air flights ideas is that they only give two reasons for flying - holidays and business travel. They never speak about the low wage workers who live abroad and how the current, relatively low prices of flights (this is about Europe), are the only way they can go home and see their families. Because when you are working a low wage job you can't really afford to travel for days on a bus to get home. That is extra time when are not working. I have been both a poor student and a poor worker abroad, and could go back to see my family only once a year if that. Tickets were prohibitively expensive most of the time, and I don't wish that upon anyone.
I usually love their docs, but this one, with their solutions are urrghhh...
Perhaps tax private air flights and leave public flights alone?
The taxes should be applied to fliers who travel too frequently or who have accumulated too many miles.
okay, but 'low wage international workers seeing family' are almost certainly only a _tiny_ fraction of flights.
We can always make exemptions, we can device ways and mechanisms for this type of situations or island nations
All this measures are under human control and we can make them as socially fair as possible
I was thinking about a friend when I saw this video he works in the mining industry here in Chile and he lives in a far away city from the project and has to fly every other week, so he probably flies between 50-100 times per year, I was calculating his carbon footprint and it says It's 0,35 tonnes of CO2 per flight. This is like a very regular thing in the industry, the company pays for all the flights, I think probably more than 50% of the workers are from other parts of the country. There're probably more countries and companies doing these things
Same thing in Australia.
That's disgusting.
Same in Australia.
It’s a mistake to think that making everything electric is going to solve the problem. It will not.
Not sure why the presenter didn't support a carbon tax - wierd.
That's so outrageous... Will our governments have the courage to ban private jets, luxury yatchs and so on? It's difficult to convince ppl who emit 10 tons of CO2 per year to divide their emissions by 5 while a few rich people emit thousands of tons every year.
You have to understand these billionaires own giant corporations that pollute more than even they do. So how can the government regulate the ultra rich when their are lobbyists literally pander to their every whim.
People hate the truth cause they brainwashed ,thats why your coment is underrated and thats why this video has such less views when people with no future and mental issues atract childs to watch them doing stupid things on the internet.
some emit thousands of tons each month
They won't, because they are paid by same rich folks. What we need are publicly-funded politicians in legislature who will pass laws FOR the public
They give money to the government's. If government's put sanctions on the rich, government's money gets cut. Simple as that. That is why nothing will change . It's all currupt.
One thing I will push back on is the idea of ‘frequent flyers’ flying necessarily because they have a choice to. Some people travel because work demands it, or because they are immigrants with family that are far away. Flying to take a holiday is one thing, but flying so that you can see your family once a year is another. Some jobs also demand that you fly more often than other jobs, and the employee is not necessarily in control of that.
Private jets are quite clearly unnecessary, since even the rich can fly commercial flights.
If somebody is taking more than 12 flights year, I don't really care about the circumstances, they need to work out something else because that is unsustainable. 12 is more than enough to see family.
@@jessefisher1809 Exactly, couldn't agree more.
@@jessefisher1809 Damn I'm gonna miss the NBA, NFL and MLB.
I recently sold a big house and moved with my family into a house less than half the size. We want to consume less, avoid impulse buying and make more of what we already have, By God’s grace, we have a mattress to sleep on, a car to go around town. We go out to nearby city parks with our kid and meet people and socialize. Many people who know us think we are eccentric to “downsize” when they’re going the way of bigger houses, more stuff to fill the big house with and more and/or fancier cars. But we feel much closer as a family and lighter living a simpler life. We have more time to spend in meditation and community service. Thank you 🙏
Earth has more money invested in religious delusions than Humans.
"how do we clean them up?"
revolution
My exact same thought
Me: Cut off their heads!
DW: Don’t let the uber rich get so rich
Me: Oh, right 😅
A revolution isn't started it just happens, just wait for the first climate upheaval
Let's do it then. Where do you want to gather?
Anxiously waiting for someone to set the date
Flying it's not a luxury for some people. there are a lot of us who live in "remote" islands where that's the only option to study, work or even get proper healthcare. A carbon tax for everyone without considering these special conditions could be catastrophic for communities or places that don't really have any cleaner alternative
Which remote island do you live on?
So stop living in a place where it is unsustainable to live without having an unsustainable lifestyle. There were a time before planes when our existence was limited by the constraints of our throwness, where we are born, cultural upbringing, etc. Accept the constraints, dont build another golf course in the desert, it is stupidity on a grand scale.
So just displace the millions of people that live on islands in Italy, Greece, Portugal, Spain or the UK?. Plus whole countries like Malta or most of the Caribbean shouldn't exist, right?.
We have to accept that a certain amount of air travel is unavoidable
@@samuxan Why would you need to displace anyone as long as there is food? We are living in a modern society, you do not need to be physically at places anymore, i.e. for education, the pandemic has shown us that with total clarity. It is your leisure that you want to uphold, do not call it necessities.
@@SlaVniK77 Not just leisure, there's families, friendships,.., but even more important most of those places are too small to have proper hospitals or other important facilities. That's my main point. You cannot get surgery or dialysis online among other things
It's a mix of things that we can do as individuals, but also we need systemic change. For example, I haven't been on a flight since 2019, and living in Italy we do have pretty great high speed train services, but I wish that they would improve the ticketing options and connectivity, to allow more overnight journeys for families and 'hop on, hop off' services like the old student interrailing tickets. We also need better education for children and adults in food growing, how to make their own clothes, and basic DIY repairs. Personally I would also have a reassessment of advertising and ban anything that promotes an excessive lifestyle... so no more summer holiday commercials in January, or endless commercials with meat, or luxury goods. But I know not everyone shares that view! I also think we need to reconsider our social media... we know that UA-cam, Facebook and Instagram are really valuable and useful for people, but they rely on the model of advertising income, which goes against what we are trying to do. I believe there should be a global organization (I guess it makes sense for it to be part of the UN?) which are funded by rich governments and which provides an ad free service that is available for everyone to use for free.
I like the suggestions related to private jets because the rich really are needed to help mitigate climate change. We need their funding for innovation
Rich Humans really dont care if the rest of us die.
Or ... they don't need to be that rich and we can use the money ourselves for the funding.
"funding" xD - they will not do anything about it, until there's like 1 billion people left on the planet.
They need to be _taxed_ big-time, and ASAP.
@@francookie9353 or...consumers don't need to consume that much. Corporations and rich people exist because consumers create demand. Eating the rich won't help fight the climate change if consumers keep consuming like we do today. Blaming the rich is just really hard cope for not wanting to look in the mirror.
@@benjaminjernfors Ha, couldn't have said it better myself. But even the bare minimum of consumption will lead to wealthy people, because that is how they have designed their power structure.
The first thing I am doing is not following any rich on any medias.
Celebrities are not any better.
Carbon tax schemes haven't produced any significant results I can see. What has worked is when laws are enacted that set emission limits and there are regulatory agencies that inspect and fine anyone not complying with those laws. It can't be on the honor system (like how the US has NEVER in it's entire history ever audited the taxes of a billionaire).
When you say that there haven't been any significant results from carbon tax, what are you referring to? No modicum of behavior, not enough revenue generated, or something else?
Also what country or region are you talking about?
@@zen1647 In the US there is a system of buying carbon offset credits. Corporations do things like buy groves of trees that were not in danger of being cut down to get a credit. Corporations pay something but carbon wise nothing has changed.
They are very effective as shown by Australian price on carbon pollution.
Emissions plummeted strongly for 3 years from about 2011 until a conservative economy wrecker repealed it & then emissions strongly rose.
@@danthesquirrel Carbon credits are a bit different to a carbon tax. Carbon credits/ carbon offsets are good in principal but need to be audited and managed much better to work out as you say, the money isn't really going to the places where it can make a difference.
I love the word "scheme". That word denotes that one is being crafty or secretive. Of course it could also mean something systematic or organized in its configuration, but most people interpret the word "scheme" as akin to being dishonest. Carbon cap and trade is one of those schemes that have been floated to solve part of the climate crisis, allowing carbon credits to be purchased by heavy users from those who do not need as many carbon credits. Funny how the idea of capping personal wealth is NEVER discussed as a serious way to cut down on carbon emissions, especially when the wealthy are more than ready to advocate for caps on everything from welfare to health care.
Making a commodity more expensive will make the middle class stop buying it, but the super rich won't care about spending a bit more.
One book that I read made the case that fixing wealth inequity will enable us to take better climate action.
Think of it this way: I have $10 and you have $10M. We both approach a farmer and I ask them to sell myself and a thousand other people $10 of wheat so that we can feed our families (so they’ll make $10k)…meanwhile, you ask them to sell you their farm for $10M so that you can build a summer home. Which option do you think the farmer chooses?
What if we reduce the amount of money that you have down to $12k? You’re still much richer than I am, but you have less ability to overwhelm our system.
Thanks for making this video. I’ve been wanting to make a video on this topic for a while, but just couldn’t get the script right. Now I can just point people to your video instead of making my own! :-)
You can limit how much the rich are able to spend on things but bribes are always going to exist
I used to clean rich people's houses in NYC and I can confirm, rich people are actually the trashiest housekeepers I've ever encountered. They don't even wipe food chunks off the floor next to the kitchen counters when they have a spill.
Easiest way to clean up rich people's emissions?
Simple: Eat them. All of them.
Saw a golf course in one shot and I thought you were going to cover that concern (abundant water usage) but I guess you didn't include it in this video. Not bad content but I feel this video could've been longer with more examples of problem areas as well on a focus on some celebrities who -are doing smart solutions with their wealth in helping our Earth.
It's not much but Coldplay for the 'Music of Spheres' tour are using bikes in their concert-venues to help power the show. I always dislike ending the video with gloom, so please consider that in the future.
In addition to consuming huge amounts of water, most golf courses are also an ecological disaster area.
Neat-freaks might admire the abnormally controlled environment, but these areas aren't as 'green' as they seem.
Unnatural lines or clutches of exotic trees;
absence of undergrowth; endemic species driven out, often replaced by exotic species; and obviously hundreds of hectares of short cut grass.
Golf courses also cater to comparatively few people, for the amount of land they occupy. That those folk are some of the more rich and/or privileged in modern society, only ensures that we won't see any golf course contributing positively to the environment or climate mitigation efforts. 🙄
Coldplay are wonderful with Climate issues. ❤ I love them, too.
I love golf, you can not take that away.
Please also ban space-to-Earth flights for space tourists. Thanks
Yeah, and stay off my Moon! 😊
okk kardashian fan*
Hey, don't discount the work that us middle class people do as well. What we lack in money, we make up for in numbers 🌲🔥🌲🔥
Step 1: introduce global carbon tax that increases in time; Step 2: give the taxed money back to the people, evenly distributed. All other methods are insufficient.
The carbon tax should in 15 years, or so, be high enough that it would be profitable to invest in removing carbon from the air, so you can reach net zero in 30 years, even if there are still kerosene fuelled planes flying around.
In the Netherlands they subsidized PHEVs for 5 years or so. After 6 billion euro subsidy, the net effect on the carbon emissions was negligible. One of the biggest tax payer money spending disasters ever in the Netherlands.
Are you aware of the amount of money Wildfires cost? Global warming is getting hotter every day, and Water is getting more expensive.
Internet, smartphones, online retail, globalisation, economic growth ... Do you not notice that most progresses are adding to our energy consumption?
The more you spend, the more CO2 you emit. Stop spending!
I'm afraid what is good for the economy is invariably bad for climate change and the environment. 😢
0:48 - "Just how dirty are the worlds richest people, and how do we clean them up?"
Me: (wheels out guillotine)
lol 😁
Your comment made me...lose my head 😀
It’s true, we inflate their fame by being obsessed by their lifestyle on social media. And yes, taxing normal people more for wanting to see the world or fly to see their families abroad is absurd.
As always DW doing great content!
Nope.
Hard differences in findings on that one.
Stopping those richies isn't easy but we need to come together and it all starts from us ourselves.
At an individual level, we can increase carbon footprint by making sure that we start composting organic matter to put carbon back to soil , and that more organic matter in soil increases ground water levels. This will reduce drought, floods, and less carbon dioxide in the air.
As much as I believe we should stop the 1% from contributing too much pollution, I also believe it’s important to start individually and stop giving too much importance to the rich.
I used to live in a middle class family in Mumbai and the levels of pollution caused frequent tonsils and cough in our family. This made me start composting from 2017 in Mumbai and now that I am overseas, I still compost.
In Mumbai we all would complain about pollution yet did nothing about it. I remember my past and continue growing organic food too.
My land was barren in 2020 and now growing organic food using compost has created a bio cycle in my backyard. I see more earthworms, birds, and honeybees. :)
Floods in Mumbai motivated me to collect rainwater, which I use for watering my plants.
I really liked the video! But did you maybe make a mistake in the definition of top 1% earners? You say these are people who earn 108000 $ a year. While I agree that this is definitely a lot of money, it would not be enough to buy yachts and houses in Dubai… The average income per year in Germany is already at ~25000 €, after removing taxes! A quick google search came up with >800000 $ a year to count as super rich, I think that sounds more like it…
Top 1% in the world, not of high income nations
@@nbrowne1 yes, I got that, thank you…
But it does not add up! Rich people also spend money in rich countries… 100000$ a year, that’s “only” ~8000$ a month, and that’s not enough to buy your own private jet and fly around the world, additionally to buying properties all over…
Unfortunately, I can’t post any link because UA-cam keeps deleting it, but Investopedia says it’s 823000$ a year for the top 1% … of the world!
100k a year is not hard to achieve if you work in IT
@@FruityTeam998 Here in Brazil with that kind of money you are in the top 1% ( easily with multiple houses with pools or a mansion) and Brazil has 200 million people. I'm guessing it's the same in China, India and Russia as well. So all in all with that income, it's believable that on average you are part of the world's 1% if you make that amount.
The premise in the video is fundamentally flawed. Even if all the billionaires (or the super rich say $100m+) emissions were added up, it would be a drop in the bucket compared to global emissions. Applying effort to change the behaviour of the rich through laws/taxes is not an “easy win for the climate”, on the contrary, it is a waste of time.
Even the 2t/person average Indian quoted is too much global emissions - if everyone emits 2t that’s 15bn t/year aka climate disaster. We need to focus on the bigger picture, decarbonising energy, industry & transport and developing negative emission tech.
How we fund that investment in existing tech (ie. wind/solar/hydro/etc) & spur technological innovation is the bigger question. Carbon taxes make a lot of sense, align everyones incentives. But not just for aviation, which is just 2% of emissions. For everything!
The idea of taxing frequent flyers kinda makes sense. But the better outcome would be for airlines (and all other companies) to pay tax per tonne of CO2. This cost would be passed on disproportionately to the wealthy passengers in first/busn/premium which will subsidise economy, just like they price tickets today. That will tax the frequent flyers but make the system easier to administer and with less focus on personal carbon footprint. But remember, taxing frequent flyers/the rich won’t stop them flying. The idea must be to either invest in lowering emissions, or paying for high-quality offsets (negative emissions).
Edit: UHNWI are $30m plus. Assuming they all had the average emissions of a billionaire (unlikely) which is around 5000t (pulling averages from multiple sources). That would be 1.25bn tonnes. We emit 32bn globally. Even if we stopped all their emissions, the problem still remains.
I think the most valuable aspect is convincing the super wealthy to invest in clean energy, stop investing in fossil fuels, and lobby for climate friendly legislation. Legislation and innovation are the two things that are really going to make the biggest difference, and the super wealthy have an outsized influence on both of those.
@Javi Oz Carbon capturing is already a thing. That technology already exists. More development and investment in it could make it scalable and effective to reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. And it is possible to prevent climate change from getting to the worst-case scenario. Actually the most extreme predictions are not longer terribly likely because of what we have already done in the last 2 decades.
Don't forget those who fly around the world to protest against climate issues, like Leonardo Di Caprio etc.
Billionaires, F1 racing events, Hoteliers all need to be educated about their responsibilities towards climate change, all govts are making policy to regulate the poor nobody is targeting the rich
Did you miss the thousands of corporations that emitting more then the rich and super rich.
the problem with corporations is that they are faceless, they can just appoint a new CEO and say they are turning things around if they are shamed, actual people are easier to convince, a corporation has no concience, only the (wealthy 1%er) people who work in it do. Someone's role at a corp is to make money. Someone's role outside of that job is to look after their family, care about their children's future - and that is an easier aspect of their lives to convince them from.
Did you miss who owns those corporations?
Both corporations and these flirty riches are the main culprits exacerbating global warming. Since we already know what role do those corporations play, it is now the time to learn about how complicit these capitalists are in depleting earth's resources and create more pollution. Both are clearly issues, I don't understand why are people ignoring the latter so hard. Why? If everyone thinks like your logic, killing people is a crime but physically abuse people until they are fully paralysed throughout the rest of their lives is not a crime.
Think twice before you put down any comments because they will mislead people's mind easily. Thank you.
Thesilent One Who do you think owns these corporations?
Yes the corporations that employ average people and produce goods and services which average people use and need, let's shut those down
Name n shame the worst in each country
If they are STILL living so carelessly, its not a lack of knowledge/understanding.
Everyone cares about their reputation n social credit
Imagine how quickly America would return to the great train era if cars and planes were fully carbon taxed
My mom is so scared everytime she forgets shopping bag because she doesn’t want to use plastic bag, and here they are.
I'm not really on board with increasing the flight prices. I mean, while it will decrease flights, it will handicap businesses too. It wouldn't bother the ultra rich so much but will hurt medium businesses
"I'm not really on board with increasing the flight prices. I mean, while it will decrease flights, it will handicap businesses too." Well, that's a problem given how we are used to thinking about the world, but to avoid ecological collapse (and thus the collapse of the food supply, private sector economy, and society), we have to shrink humanity's footprint by about 50% while allowing some poor countries to modernize. So we HAVE TO shrink the private sector economy in wealthy nations. How we do that while still meeting everyone's needs will be a challenge, but we don't have a choice--those are just the laws of nature.
The taxes on Business class and private jets should be increased, not on all flights in general.
@@karlwheatley1244In theory I am on board with that. In practice it is very unlikely. I do not even quite see how that would work.
Many industrialized countries have a demographic that will be rather costly for some decades. And their own costs for mitigation and adaption regarding climate change ahead of them. Plus if things were fair payments to help poorer countries with climate change (I am very pessimistic about that ever happening on a large enough scale, but still).
I do not quite see how paying for all that would work with a shrinked private sector. No excuse, there has to be a way found, but honestly I think humanity will make things worse by far before finding a way.
hi. great video. appreciate the work and research gone into it. Thank you. 🙏
Maybe theres such a thing as too much wealth - where it is overtaken and money = power is taking us downhill?
It has led to being the savior to innovation. good things? little. bad things? plentiful.
Good thing - it has always been about people.
Bad thing - people are separated because of the influence.
Have a great day everyone! Life is as beautiful as we think it is. 🙏✌️❤️
6.50 I fly approx 1 return in 5-7 years, vegan, try 2 avoid waste, food, tech, clothes, plastic (often buy 2nd hand/repair etc), never had own car but still feel like you "have to" for instance have a computer...so we need to change more in our society (together, mentality/lifestyle) but finding ways to get at the super rich, tax avoidance, illegal mining, pollution by big business (from food/beverage to textile or tech) and re-invent (green/socialise) the building sector to make sustainable and really affordable housing instead of luxury investment items etc is URGENTLY needed. Scary that Kardashian girl has so many views and likes for looking like an absurd, perfect but scary barbie doll on a beach or seat? Why🤔🤯😣
Workers should own and control the means of production.
That's just an empty statement and doesn't mean anything
>change power from one place to another
no, you're part of the problem
Working damages the climate.
Great documentary!
You guys should do the topic of the problem with subsidies like farming subsidies that allow burgers to be cheaper than unsubsidized fruit.
On a global scale I would belong to the top 10% of incomes, but within my European country the top 10% is just out of reach. I do believe that every little bit counts, so I do what I can. Like use public transport when available, fly as little as possible and try to buy things that are made close to home in order to avoid transport kilometers that way. I see it as me not flying as much so people living on islands who have fewer options are being balanced out... I also help the lower income people I know personally in trying to change some of their habits, not only for the environment but also for their wallet. We have noticed that acting green tends to be cheaper, when you give it a go.
All these things are drops in a bucket, that's why I also try to use as much political action as I can in order to try to implement systemic changes. I think these two should go hand in hand. Do what you can yourself and also aim for the system to change.
How about a carbon tax that increases exponential the more you emit in a given time?
Example with random numbers: first ton of co2 per month costs 10€ next ton costs 100€ next ton 1000€ and so on.
Or it could be coupled to the income/wealth of a person like some nations do with fines... the more you have the more you have to pay for misbehaving, the "pain" of a fine should be the same for everyone.
This money could be used to build out renewable energy sources and /or some form of carbon capture.
So Besos and the Kardashians can still fly private jets but at a even for them hefty price tag.
But yeah, in a world where the uber rich can pay a super rich financial advisor to show them how to evade basic taxes this will be a dream.
That sounds like a perfect way for them to pay for their emissions. Imagine if they had to pay 10% of their wealth 🤑
Rocket research shouldn’t be in the same category as a mega yacht. Everyone benefits from satellite technology and space sciences. Space joyrides seem outlandish, but I am sure initial jet travel did as well, and now a majority of our population uses it.
Am a frequent flyer for work, accessing projects would definitely affect implementation, having said that, COVID has taught us to work remotely and only travel when is essential…
"We need you to stop consuming so much so that we can continue consuming as always" - some millionarie
A bolder and better episode.
Wirklich gut, vielen Dank.
But don't forget that in reality the rich add a lot more to this problem by promoting corruption and keep pushing for a system that makes dishonesty & carelessness a prerequisite for individual growth and prosperity.
It's very interesting to hear the statistics behind this! This last year I have taken a couple flights which clearly puts me up there as an emitter. How many flights has your channel creators taken in the last year? Definitely important to self reflect
Thanks for your comment! Yes, we are also very reflective of our team's travel choices. Most of our videos are made either remotely or via train travel when in Europe, but you're right, no one is above critique when it comes to excessive carbon emissions 🙏
Go learn about our future on my channel Kyle.
I smell rich.
Air Travel and fashion advertising should be banned or limited, just like we did with tobacco, its dangerous and bad for our health. Just remove the advertising and then let people make their own decisions. Also, I am a smoker, and I've seen a big generational difference since tobacco advertising was banned, so it definitely works on people especially the younger gens.
Documentary on recent trending topics.. Nice! 👍
Best way to cut emissions is education. Educated kids and parents a like ...
Such a nice content 👍👍👍
Flights within European mainland and other large land masses could be completely banned and replaced by fast electrical rail. On logging flight plans private jets would be subjected to the same level of Tax as say a 737.A similar Tax could be introduced for yachts. Property tax would be based on the square area and energy rating of building. Car's would be taxed on what comes out of the tail pipe, this tax would be double for a person owning 2 cars .
I'm surprise the video needed 12 minutes when saying "execute them" takes like 3 seconds?
I try to work against consumerism, for instance by buying second hand books and clothes, and avoiding big brands. Furthermore, I try to educate others and raise awareness through social media.
Love your attitude. ♡
I look at wealth as the hoarding of resources that starves additional life on our planet. There is a disconnect of Human's currency (money) and nature's currency - (carbon). The "sustainable" carbon footprint (without taking into account that we need to get to negative emissions) is 4 tons. 4 tons is a lot (+85% of inhabitants on our planet live within this limit), but not enough to move huge chunks of metal around with fossil fuels. We need to include these externalities in a progressive matter where the % of "tax" goes up the more that one emit. The rich would consume less and would avoid this "tax" by living more sustainably (bio aviation fuels, solar panels). This externality "costs" ( I don't like to call them as tax, but just a cost of living on this planet) can be invested into sustainable development and to help those that live under 4 tons of carbon develop sustainably. Perhaps we need more hurricanes, fires and flooding before we can get the rich to act.
The rich don't seem to be perishing in these hurricanes, fires, and floods--they won't act
A very important video! They should have been a bit more precise with their definition of the ultrarich though. In the european country I live an annual salary of 109.000$ translates translates to ~4400€ monthly salary after taxes. That’s surely a very good salary but definitely not one where you can afford space travel and private jets!
An apartment in the city I live in St. Paul MN if it is small, moldy, and in bad condition goes for $2500/month that is equal to $30,000 a year for only a dirty roof over your head. Defining these numbers on income alone isn't reasonable, because it isn't possible to live off less than $50,000 in the USA cities. Even with that much a person won't be able to get the best medical care because good medical insurance will be out of their price range. Our nation makes it uncomfortable and in some cases life threatening to decrease income because of corrupt medical policies. Coerced into earning more or die is the USA motto.
Maybe you could move out of the City?
@@Diana1000Smiles that's more expensive
You need a certain amount of money, resources and land to get basic things that can readily be found in nature yet are restricted by societies. The laws that restrict human nature create these perverse incentives.
Maybe the price mechanism is not the best way to solve every problem ever, after all.
Why not limit landing rights for airplanes that emit more than X kg of CO2? Starting with a ‘relaxed’ limit and gradually put more more strictions every year?
There should be take off and landing fees on all private jets at all airports which should then fund local climate action.
@@thecrazygainerguy it would be better to scrap them and use that to fund action instead.
@@seandepagnier You could just slaughter half of the human population.. That would dramatically change things...
Rationing is really the only fair way to limit carbon emissions
These questions are really in the zeitgeist right now
Eat the rich!
Cement, construction, manufacturing cars, goods, electronics, and shipping them with ships that bilge dump. Esp the fact that these cars and products all have planned obsolescence and the right to repair... We can become alot more efficient if we start building long lasting products that can be self repaired or repaired by someone locally AND we change our lifestyles to be more willing to keep our products longer. I've personally been keeping my laptops, phones and car longer than before - not upgrading as soon.
Thanks for your message! Have you subscribed to our channel? From what you're mentioning, you will probably like our other videos too 🙃
Check out:
📺 Planned Obsolescence: How companies trick you into buying a new phone 👉 ua-cam.com/video/7aYJPonRJd8/v-deo.html
📺 Bilge dumping: The worst pollution you've never heard of 👉 ua-cam.com/video/W4nQBVEE4BE/v-deo.html
Let us know what you think in the comments!
Please tell us more about what we can do to help.
Be sure to subscribe to our channel! We publish solution-oriented reports every Friday ✨
The solution for you: Reduce 50% of the population and 90% eat bugs instead of meat.
We: Offset
Very brave video, thank you for making it!
You might like my content too. Doesn't get any braver.
To go short: That ain't gonna happen, since the power structures make it impossible.
To go ever shorter: let's prepare for extinction
11 minutes and not a single guillotine or feast was suggested?
To be considered part of the 1% you actually need to earn $600,000 USD a year.
The UN environment program calculates the income threshold at US$109,000, according to the purchasing power parity.
Link 👉 wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/34432/EGR20ch6.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y
But please, will you share where you have the $600,000 USD calculation? We would love to have a look 🤓
documentaries like Gashole truly show the elites true colors
That bit about Tom Ogle was really intriguing (200 miles on 2 gallons of gas). Doesn't look like that is true, because someone somewhere else would have tried it - North Korea, China, some place in Africa, etc. But the idea should be worth pursuing.
"Where do you feel most power to stop the climate change?"
- Could you rephrase the question?
Superb
I like the idea of the ultra rich to lead by example, letting them buy their way out still makes most people still want to be like that, I swear that making my basic needs is by far the best and most fulfilling life ever
Lead by example lol you're extremely naive these are the same people who utilize child labor and pay their employees in other countries pennies or even nothing at times and the ones who cause the most harm to the earth overall and humanity in general they will only lead by example verbally.
Since the rich are leading in terms of CO2 emissions, that includes Elon Musk by example then we are doomed
I like this video, thank you 😊
Thank for infomative video
The carbon tax posses a quandary for me: the "rich" can theoretically just pay it, and the "poor" cannot. It may just be a way to restrict the mobility of the "poor" making them even more poor, or making them pay more to e.g. go to and from work where they barely make enough money to get by anyway. Meanwhile it may not restrict the "rich" at all who will pay a little more to keep doing all the things they would do anyway.
I think the answer would be carbon tax plus more restrictions from government bodies on excessive carbon emissions and literally limit people's mobility. The only I am aware of where we even came close to hitting emissions reductions was 2020 and that was because of the restrictions brought on by a pandemic. It wasn't about carbon taxes, it was about making it impossible to e.g. fly somewhere except under very specific circumstances. I think that alone may prove that if mobility is restricted (within reason) climate change may be slowed.
Emissions should be rationed, starting at todays average, and go down 1 ton/year. At the same time green energy and tech must be turboboosted. The increases in production of green energy must also be rationed so the rich dont hoard all the green energy and live lavishly while the rest lives on 1 ton CO2 rations from the last remaining gas and coal plants. The same line of thought applies for land use, pollution, and all other planetary boundries.
@@erlingschrder8530 if you do that people will sell their emissions to the rich. So this will not change anything.
I am not come in top 10% but i try my best to save earth
That's why it won't matter
Every little bit is good. We Earthlings didn't get this endangered in just one year. ✌
For the average person, not even those in the top 10 per cent, a move to a more meat-free diet would heavily impact their carbon footprint.
This is easily achievable. Say, for instance, taking a leaf out of the standard common folk diet of Greece for instance and limiting meat consumption to just one day of the week - traditionally Friday.
Although, even just having one to two meals of veggies only would have a massive impact and finding alternatives to eating meat with every meal will further the individual's reduction in carbon.
Then there is the obvious transition in transportation - the use of public transport, cycling and the use of electric vehicles.
Far harder admittedly, though doable.
Then there are the purchases you make.
Just reducing the amount of non-essential items you buy every month helps an enormous amount and you could look to make purchases of everyday items such as soaps, detergents, deodorant etc. that are produced with the health of the environment in mind - and subsequently your own by default.
Then there is the age-old use of energy at your home. Something we are all going to be forced to consider in the coming years. Switch off household items not being used. Turn off the lights in the rooms you are not in. Don't leave your TV on in the living room whilst cooking in the kitchen etc.
One trick I use is not to iron my clothes and only iron what is necessary. This not only reduces my energy use, it also allows many of my clothes to last far longer (still have T-shirts, jumpers and trousers that are more than 18 years old that I wear regularly, oh and a dressing gown that I have owned since 1999).
There are many ways in which each of us can commit to reducing our own impact and we can only hope that those who have them means, start to use them well.
As an airline employee I like my travel perks but flying standby I never take a seat that wouldn’t have otherwise been empty? I guess that’s marginally less bad in some small way. But I guess I’m just as complicit as an oil and gas worker
ETA: I also used to work as an unloading helper in an 18 wheeler transport truck, we burned like 500L of diesel per day(14hr days). It was gross. I quit partly because of that so much of trucking should be done by rail… can’t find a better option like that for flying, but I guess it’s just as bad.
Reducing the average americans carbon emissions by just 2 tons would do more than stopping all carbon emissions of the top 1000 richest people in the world. There is a difference between exceptional use and average use...
But even here in the US it's not that cut and dry. According to the US census 1 in 10 Americans live below the poverty line. These people have lower levels of consumption, depend on public transit, and live in the denser urban areas which emit less than the sprawling suburbs.
To add to the complication, some states with the highest levels of emissions (like New York and California) are actually the lowest *per capita* and are the ones passing the most aggressive policies to curb carbon emissions. Meanwhile, states with lower overall emissions (like North Dakota and Alaska) have the highest per capita emissions and are doing nothing to address climate change.
so think its better want millions of people to sacrifice rather than 1000 of the worst people?
The average American is not emitting too much, to begin with
@@studyonline4763 Yes they are. The average american emits 5 times the world average. The world average is already too much or there would be no issue with emissions.
I would be fine with taxing flying. I can afford to travel yearly but choose to travel only once every 5 years because it's wasteful. I can afford a car for each adult in my family but choose to share 2 cars with 4 drivers because it's wasteful. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. I could dramatically increase my income just by working but choose not to because one income is enough. Why heat and cool additional offices when I don't need it. I'm not greedy enough to do that much damage to the planet.
Ditch the cars, go by bike or public transport. Travel every year on the train.
I lived on half of the carbon footprint of the average American when I worked. The positive side effect of that was that I only spent half of my income, invested the other half and ended up working half of a career. Now that I'm retired, I've cut my CF down another half to a sustainable 4 tons.
But this doesn’t really work for people who live in islands or have family abroad. Plus traveling widens your horizons and help prevents extreme views
@@ChichillasGM
Online videos and online travel
@@ChichillasGM "traveling widens your horizons", not wide enough to learn some compassion I see.
We must also reduce our love for fast fashions,new iphones and trending products like gadgets and fashion clothings
If we got rid of the publicly traded corporate model where businesses are run by anonymous investors and made all companies employee-owned, businesses would act a lot more responsibly. Employees who live where they work are likely to care about how those businesses treat the environment because it's their home.
You have yourselves to blame for using capitalistic services as much as capitalists for producing them.
Blaming doesn't solve problems.
WoW such a nice relation of billionaires with carbon emissions!
Very very nice and innovative
Another wonderful one!
The deregulation of industries has been the core drive of the rich over the past 50 years. Reintroducing regulation and implementing strict conflict of interest mechanisms would help protect society. What is sustainable over the coming centuries? Not exploitative socio-economic systems of the West. Can capitalism save itself? Perhaps, but it will not save us.
redistributing wealth went straight to communist way. Top 1% have majority of their wealth in shares of their companies which can be only realised when the shares are sold. Companies pay their tax according to law. But companies may use loopholes to pay low tax which is legal too. We must invest in hydrogen fuel to drive aeroplanes for sustainability. Do you insist on not travelling? How do you expect a traveller to travel across Atlantic if he needs to?
Great content as always
You might like my content too 🙂
beef for them, bugs for us.
Regarding your 10% match to income... Is it after taxes or before taxes ?