The rich definitely emit more carbon than everyone else. But "rich" in this context includes most citizens of developed countries. High carbon footprint is a type of first-world privilege.
FAQ
"Why care about my carbon footprint when rich people fly private jets?"
Private jets are <2% of all commercial airplane emissions
iWhat are the private flights of the 1% doing to the planet? The numbers are in - CBC-- "In the end, Gössling's study found that, in 2023, the total direct emissions from private jets of 15.6 Mt CO2 was equivalent to roughly 1.8 per cent of the total emissions produced by commercial aviation."
, or 0.04% of the world's total emissions.
i
Aviation is 1.9% of the world's carbon emissions (see the pie chart at the beginning of this page). Private jets are 1.8% of that.
Don't get me wrong, the average rich person has a horrendously high carbon footprint
iWhat are the private flights of the 1% doing to the planet? The numbers are in - CBC~ "Some who use private jets could be producing roughly 500 times more CO2 in a year than the average person."
The only reason the world total private jet emissions are low is because there aren't that many people flying private jets. Note: This does NOT excuse the wasteful lifestyles of rich people whatsoever. It's just a reminder that we can't let it be a reason to ignore the carbon footprints of average people.
,
and we should definitely deal with that. But we also have to deal with our own.
"Why care about my carbon footprint when the US military has such a massive carbon footprint?"
File:us military carbon footprint - Google Search.pngThere are plenty of misleading headlines that compare the US military to much smaller countries, making it look so big that you may as well neglect everything else. But when you put the numbers in perspective, you see that this is not true.
The US military is about 1% of the USA's total emissions. We still have to deal with the rest.
US military emissions: 70 million tonnes per year.
iPentagon Fuel Use, Climate Change, and the Costs of War - Neta C. Crawford1 - Boston University - Updated and Revised, 13 November 2019iThis is the same study cited by other Google Search results such as Forbes, Earth.org, and InsideClimateNews.org-- "Department Of Energy data were used to estimate the total greenhouse gas emissions for standard and non-standard operations of the Department Of Defense from 2001 to 2018 (fiscal years, inclusive) to be a total of 1,267 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent."
-- Divide this by the 18 years involved, and you get 70 million tonnes per year.
-- [Also shown in the paper]: The military emits more carbon than the rest of the government combined. But that's still small compared to the rest of the country!
None of this justifies any of the horrible things that the US military does or has done. Just to say that its carbon emissions aren't an excuse to ignore all the other carbon emissions.
"Why care about my carbon footprint when fossil fuel corporations are responsible for 70% of all emissions?"
Their sales are a function of what people buy. It's 2 sides of the same coin.
"But how much do ordinary people's actions really affect the planet?"
In richer countries like US, Canada, Russia, etc., the answer is: a lot. If the whole world lived like the average person there, we would need over 3 Earths.
💬discussionTODO: retrieve the publication that this was mentioned in
If you're a leftist, think of this as a sort of unconscious privilege.
💬discussionI hope no one takes this the wrong way. I'm not trying to pit people in poor countries against people in rich countries. I'm trying to reach more people in rich countries and tell them why & how they need to change.
We need to change the cultural norms that lead to unsustainable living.
"But I heard that carbon footprint calculations are just a capitalist tool to put the blame on consumers instead of corporations?"
No.
The less we consume fossil fuels, the less money fossil fuel companies can make.
If a company is giving you "tips to reduce your carbon footprint", chances are the tips are so insignificant that it would have no real effect on their profit margin. They typically focus on bags, packaging and straws, which are nothing compared to the actual products sold. Even "green" products may involve just as many resources, if not more.
Just because corporations are dishonest, doesn't mean we should throw away the whole idea of accounting for carbon. Even without capitalism or money, the math still matters.
