Pretty embarrassing overall for the species.
The word just here hides a lot of complexity and difficult tradeoffs.
Even in the US only half the population will fly in any year and you can be sure it’s not the poorer half.
It’s not the rich half using public transport, they are only going to benefit from a transition away from private car ownership.
None of this is their fault, but ignoring it isn't good either.
All aircraft emissions are just 3% of US total. If all rich people (either the top 1% or 10%) reduced their emissions to zero tomorrow we would still not reach reduction targets needed to avoid catastrophic warming.
Everyone needs to contribute.
The numbers are what they are. Rich people have much greater obligation to reduce their emissions. They benefit most from economic activity and they cause the most emissions per capita.
If there were zero rich people tomorrow we would still have an emissions problem for the climate.
What about continuing to live at all? That is a decision people make every moment of the day and are not being held accountable for it at all.
If there were zero people tomorrow there would be still be an ongoing problem for the climate from the changes wreaked already.
There would be dramatic reforestation, algae growth, etc.
That might have caused some controversy, too, but is closer to what I meant. Your point is well taken, but maybe if I posted differently the ensuing discussion would have been less acrimonious.
Human activity will have climatic impact. At a specific emission rate per capita, what is the number of humans that can exist? Who decides which humans continue to exist?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-fam...
Gargantuan slow ships are actually a great way to move stuff.
A few cheap gadgets are dwarfed by a flight to Bali, new SUV or large house.
Aircraft emissions are 3% of the global total, for the US it is much higher (~9%)[1] and for the richest 10% it is higher again.
You can't get away from the fact that emissions are going to be reasonably well correlated with spending [2] and the poor don't spend very much.
>Everyone needs to contribute.
If we get a real handle on our carbon emissions then the lives of the poor will improve.
[1] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/transportation-sector-emiss...
[2] https://climatefactchecks.org/worlds-richest-10-linked-to-tw...
Yeah, the changes required are systemic and go from the top all the way to the bottom, and the things you mention are part of that process, but pricing people out of everything without offering an off-ramp is sadistic bullshit, and the only reason it's a thing is because rich people and stock prices have more representation in politics than the poor and the environment.
Which do you believe is likely the lower hanging fruit, has a higher return per dollar spent and is likely to be more ethical and less invasive?
So yeah. I care about per capita emissions on the grounds that things need to change fast, and adjusting the lifestyle of a few million is radically easier than wiping half the planet off the emissions map.
Billionaires aren't the 1%, they're the 0.00003%.
Top 1% globally is basically anyone making more than $100k/yr.
If you deleted all billionaires from existence, it would make no impact on climate change. If you deleted all 1% ers and left the billionaires, there will be a huge improvement in climate changing emissions
I don’t blame anyone for looking at radical solutions. We’re not putting out the fire by putting the wood back in a pile.
There’s obviously some need to experiment to see if we can find solutions, but historically our track record for engineering complex systems has not been great.
https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/politics/2025/06/23/c...
In the US, the large natural emission of isoprene is why emission control for vehicles shifted to focus on NOx emission.
Less ironically, there was a HN submission this week finding cryptic isoprene emission in soybean. You know, famous for the GM.
The original aricle's title is "Scientists Are Just Beginning to Understand How Life Makes Clouds, and Their Discoveries May Drastically Improve Climate Science." Indeed, this knowledge will improve the models we use to understand and predict the climate.
The supplied title "Cloud-forming isoprene and terpenes from crops may drastically improve climate" is completely different, as it states that crop emissions may change climate for the better.
"Understanding cloud-forming isoprene and terpenes from crops may drastically improve climate science" would be a much better title for this post.
In clearly better faith, there was a HN submission this week finding cryptic isoprene emission in soybean (3pts). The crop that's Taleb-famous for the GM in GMO. Title & theme of that paper seemed to have bounced off the enthusiasts here..
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44377401
(Maybe yours is a bit long,maybe not, but imho we're a bit closer than only "understanding".)
ricardobayes•7mo ago