this post was submitted on 07 May 2025
427 points (98.9% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

6518 readers
279 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world. About 1C of total warming. Second chart: about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability. Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases. About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net
427
World's wealthiest 10% have contributed to two-thirds of global warming since 1990, study finds (phys.org)
submitted 3 days ago by RockBottom@feddit.org to c/climate@slrpnk.net
45 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/21822936

"If everyone had emitted like the bottom 50% of the global population, the world would have seen minimal additional warming since 1990,"

The study assesses the contribution of the highest emitting groups within societies and finds that the top 1% of the wealthiest individuals globally contributed 26 times the global average to increases in monthly 1-in-100-year heat extremes globally and 17 times more to Amazon droughts.

The research sheds new light on the links between income-based emissions inequality and climate injustice, illustrating how the consumption and investments of wealthy individuals have had disproportionate impacts on extreme weather events

Our study shows that extreme climate impacts are not just the result of abstract global emissions, instead we can directly link them to our lifestyle and investment choices, which in turn are linked to wealth,"

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] will_a113@lemm.ee 80 points 3 days ago (5 children)

It takes only around $850k of net worth to be in the global 1% for wealth. Minimum wage ($7.25/hr) will put you in the top 10% of wages. So this really just says industrialized nations have been responsible for most emissions.

[–] Voyajer@lemmy.world 26 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The world top 10% grossing earners start at $49,000

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 9 points 2 days ago

You're talking about income. They're talking net worth.

Very different top 10% sets

[–] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 5 points 2 days ago

That might not have been true for the entirety of time since the 90's

[–] solo@slrpnk.net 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

Partially, I agree your conclusion, but I believe some clarifications could help on the math part, because minimum wage will never put you in the top 10% of world income.

From investopedia 2024:

How Much Income Puts You in the Top 1%, 5%, 10%?

Individuals in the top 10% earn at least six figures annually. In some areas, those in the top 1% must make over $1 million per year, while in others, the threshold is lower.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 23 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That's the top 10% in the United States. They're talking about the top 10% in the world.

[–] solo@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I don't think so. I have the impression that the introduction part was talking in general, mainly because it says The amount varies by location and local wage trends, and then it talks about the US, specifically.

Appart from that, in page 23 of the Global Wealth Report 2024 by UBS in The global weath pyramyd 2023 it also says saomething similar, that 16.3% of adults have wealth in USD of 100k to 1m.

Did I get something wrong?

Edit: At the bottom of the investopedia article, they have the sources and since they only have references about the US, I believe I can safely say that I my assumption that the intro was talking about the entire world was wrong.

[–] shoo@lemmy.world 19 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I think you're underestimating how poor most of the globe is. This study is also on wealth, not just income

[–] will_a113@lemm.ee 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Oh, I was just talking about if you averaged things globally. Of course it’s much higher than that if you limit the scope to specific countries or groups.

[–] solo@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 days ago

The calculations in the site you linked is more of a creative accounting approach for feel good purposes. Nothing serious there imo.

[–] dumnezero@piefed.social 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's also the rich classes in "developing" countries.

[–] solo@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Let's not forget an important factor: within the span of 30 years.

I spent too many hours yesterday trying to find the relevant info without taking this into consideration.

[–] Damage@feddit.it 0 points 2 days ago

Countries that emit are top emitters, shocking news