24 February 2022
While the money and political elites are turning up the climate change scareorator way past eleven once more in order to keep populations in a state of fear now that the COVID scare is crumbling, the finger of blame for the doomsday scenarios predicted by climate mathematical models is as usual being pointed at We The Ordinary Punters.
"WE are all in this together and YOU must make sacrifices to save the planet," warn political leaders, clueless academics and the billionaire psychopaths who have bought control of politics, academia and the media. And few people stop to question why WE must make sacrifices while THEY continue to fly round the world in private jets, cruise the Mediterranean or Caribbean in luxury yachts that are more like floating palaces that leisure craft, and live in floodlit, air conditioned palaces that consume more energy than a middle sized town.
Well some of us do question, we are known to the majority as either online journalists or 'conspiracy theorists' depending on a reader's politics, and to the politicians, academics, billionaire psychopaths and people on their payrolls as "that bunch of awkward, really obnoxious bastards who refuse to believe 'The Science' and insist on challenging oppressive policies devised 'for the greater good.'
Thanks to us bunch of awkward, really obnoxious bastards, and the statistics nerds at Statistia it is now becoming widely known that the world's richest ten percent are responsible for an estimated 47 percent share of global CO2 emissions. This has been revealed by a recent study published in the journal Nature Sustainability, which focused on how tackling poverty worldwide would affect emissions of CO2, the harmless but demonised gas without which life is not possible but which has unscientifically been blamed for all the mathematical models of climate related catastrophes in the past thirty years. As Statista's Florian Zandt shows in the chart below, the difference between the poorest and wealthiest people not only shows in their emission share.
ad the lower 50 percent income group only produces about ton of CO2 per year compared to approximately 48 tons per capita of carbon dioxide emitted by the wealthiest one percent.
You will find more infographics at Statista
Of course, the results are different depending on the region. In Europe, USA, Canada or Australia for example, the bottom 50 percent had a higher estimated share of total emissions than the top ten percent, while the top one percent in Sub-Saharan Africa were responsible for more carbon emissions than the bottom 50 percent.
Combating poverty (a goal only committed virtue signallers would see as realistic,) around the world would require an unprecedented level of cooperation between nations and present logistical challenges of a scale never before envisaged, its effects on global warming would be minimal according to the study. Lifting over a billion people above the official poverty line under the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 1 would only raise the estimated global CO2 output by roughly two percent, even though carbon emissions in low to lower-middle income countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and South East Asia could potentially double.
However the top ten per cent are unlikely to make sacrifices to reduce their gigantic footprints, and while the high to middle income groups of the developed nations are more likely to respond to the manipulative propaganda of behavioural scientists, even their scope for making a difference is tiny compared to emissions generated by manufacturing industry, transport and agriculture.