You're viewing a single thread.
Let's talk about this shitty graph, what are the metrics? Show us the numbers, because I bet it will paint a very different picture.
Top 1% emit 50 tons of CO2 per year per person [1].
That's 8 billion * 1% * 50 tons = 4 billion tons per year.
Total annual CO2 emissions are about 35 billion tons [2].
Share of total emissions:
Ultra-rich (top 1%): 11%
Middle class (top 50% excluding top 1%): 77%
Poor (bottom 50%): 11%
Graph looks about right.
I'm not saying the curve is wrong, but when you create a graph like that without putting values on the axis it's inherently misleading. Compare the top 10% of that cohort against the rest and tell me what percent of pollution they create, the issue here is disproportionate impact from the minority.
Compare the top 10% of that cohort against the rest
Top 10% emit 22 tons of CO2 per year per person [1].
8 billion * (10% * 22 tons - 1% * 50 tons) = 14 billion tons of CO2 per year, excluding the top 1%.
Share of total emissions:
Upper middle class (top 10% excluding top 1%): 39%
Lower middle class (top 50% excluding top 10%): 38%
when you create a graph like that without putting values on the axis it’s inherently misleading
No, it's a common way to present data in a popular scientific context.
the issue here is disproportionate impact from the minority.
No, as the graph shows, the issue is the disproportionate impact from the richest half of the population. Even without the top 1%, the remaining 50-99% percentiles emit far too much. Even without the top 10%, the 50-90% percentiles still emit far too much.
The downvotes on this post just goes to show that lemmy is overrun by a new generation of climate change deniers, denying not the phenomenon as such, but their own culpability in it.
But they'll get what's coming to them.