• Nakoichi [they/them]
    ·
    2 months ago

    So we could basically solve climate change just by killing a few thousand people?

    Sounds like a fair trade for the billions of lives it would save.

    • GarbageShoot [he/him]
      ·
      2 months ago

      It's a structural problem, merely killing those few thousand would accomplish very little since they would rapidly be replaced.

    • will_a113@lemmy.ml
      ·
      2 months ago

      From the article:

      The richest 1 percent (77 million people) were responsible for 16 percent of global consumption emissions in 2019 —more than all car and road transport emissions. The richest 10 percent accounted for half (50 percent) of emissions.

      To be a member of the richest 1% of the world you need a net worth of about $800k -- so while the billionaire class is still a massive problem, an even larger problem ecologically is that tens of millions of moderately wealthy people from wealthy nations have massively outsized carbon footprints.

      • Nakoichi [they/them]
        ·
        2 months ago

        77 million people

        This would include several members of my family and they can either give up their destructive lifestyles or get fucked too.

        • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
          ·
          2 months ago

          Do they live in NYC and just refuse to use public transit? If so, yea I agree, fuck'em. Do they live in the suburbs because they likely can't afford to live in a city where they wouldn't need their car? Well now you get into the actual problem that a competent, non-capitalist government would need to solve. Simply killing the petite-bourgeious will solve nothing and honestly would just cause their wealth to be sucked upward make the problem even worse for everyone else.

      • GarbageShoot [he/him]
        ·
        2 months ago

        while the billionaire class is still a massive problem, an even larger problem ecologically is that tens of millions of moderately wealthy people from wealthy nations have massively outsized carbon footprints.

        It is definitely false that that's a larger problem. The top corporations emit way more carbon than all the petite-bourgeois SUV drivers and so on. I think the number people constantly trot out is that the top 100 companies (a fraction of a fraction of a percent here) do 70% of the emitting.

      • Hyacin (He/Him)@lemmy.ml
        ·
        2 months ago

        To be a member of the richest 1% of the world you need a net worth of about $800k – so while the billionaire class is still a massive problem, an even larger problem ecologically is that tens of millions of moderately wealthy people from wealthy nations have massively outsized carbon footprints.

        This can not be correct. My wife inherited her parent's house when the last one died when she was 17 or so (guardianship until 18, whatever, not the point) - but we're poor af. I mean we're not lining up at the food bank, but no way we're top 1%. It's worth $800k easy (CAD, but still, throw in some other 'things' we own and we're there).

        • Saeculum [he/him, comrade/them]
          ·
          2 months ago

          In most of the world, $800,000 is enough money that you and your wife would never have to work another day in your lives. Even in Canada that's 20-ish years of the median household income.

    • ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      1% of 8 billion is 80 million.

      Yes, an increase in the guillotine business would help, but it's a systemic problem and only changing the system will solve it.

    • linkhidalgogato@lemmy.ml
      ·
      2 months ago

      more like a few million but we dont have to kill them just destroy the economic system that gives them unjust power and access to resources.