A ver @tagom explica por qué el estudio es un chiste así como pa cachar tu onda, partiendo por estas citas.
¿Esto es mentira?
¿Esto que dice esta mal?
¿Esto es un panfleto marxista leninista chavista?
¿Esto es mentira?
The 25 years from 1990 to 2015 saw a rapid escalation of the climate crisis, as global annual carbon emissions grew by around 60%, and the total emissions added to the atmosphere since the mid-1800s approximately doubled.
The richest 10% of humanity (c.630 million people) accounted for 52% of the cumulative emissions, depleting the global carbon budget for 1.5C by nearly a third (31%);
The richest 1% (c.63 million people) alone accounted for over 15% of the cumulative emissions, using up 9% of the carbon budget: more than twice the poorest 50% (c.3.1 billion people), or more than the entire cumulative emissions of citizens in the EU;
The 40% of humanity in the global middle class (c.2.5 billion people) accounted for 41% of the cumulative emissions, and 25% of the carbon budget, while the poorest 50% accounted for just 7% of cumulative emissions, and a mere 4% of the budget.
The richest 1% (c.63 million people) alone accounted for over 15% of the cumulative emissions, using up 9% of the carbon budget: more than twice the poorest 50% (c.3.1 billion people), or more than the entire cumulative emissions of citizens in the EU;
The 40% of humanity in the global middle class (c.2.5 billion people) accounted for 41% of the cumulative emissions, and 25% of the carbon budget, while the poorest 50% accounted for just 7% of cumulative emissions, and a mere 4% of the budget.
¿Esto que dice esta mal?
Over the past 20 years, much of the popular and political debate about climate change has focused on the impact of the global middle class in countries like China and India. While this is important, our analysis suggests that close attention is also needed on the out-sized impact of the world's richest people – wherever they live – to encourage a more equitable use of the remaining global carbon budget.
¿Esto es un panfleto marxista leninista chavista?
Box 3: Individual responsibility versus systemic change
While relatively rich individuals can make a significant difference through voluntary action – such as by flying less or choosing public transport – much more is needed. Today's extreme carbon inequality is the result of political choices made over the past 20-30 years, a period dominated by neoliberal economic thinking and elite political capture that has seen income and wealth inequality in most countries soar, reflecting deeply entrenched systems of patriarchy and colonialism that prioritize domination and enrichment of some, at the cost of others. These systemic causes require systemic solutions: new economic models that don't depend on the endless growth in consumption of the already affluent. Beyond shifting energy supply, policies are needed that reduce demand among the richest, highest emitters, while prioritizing efforts to ensure everyone can realize their human rights. Such progressive, demand-side policies might include special taxes or bans for high carbon luxury goods and services; wider carbon prices with pro-poor revenue recycling; broader income and wealth redistribution; or challenging stereotypes that promote growth and individual consumerism as normal, desirable, 'powerful' and 'masculine'. Beyond cutting high income footprints alone, such measures may lead to a broader 'social tipping point' that makes reductions by other relatively high emitters more acceptable, challenges the political influence of high emitters, and sparks wider shifts in social, gendered and racial norms about endless consumption.
While relatively rich individuals can make a significant difference through voluntary action – such as by flying less or choosing public transport – much more is needed. Today's extreme carbon inequality is the result of political choices made over the past 20-30 years, a period dominated by neoliberal economic thinking and elite political capture that has seen income and wealth inequality in most countries soar, reflecting deeply entrenched systems of patriarchy and colonialism that prioritize domination and enrichment of some, at the cost of others. These systemic causes require systemic solutions: new economic models that don't depend on the endless growth in consumption of the already affluent. Beyond shifting energy supply, policies are needed that reduce demand among the richest, highest emitters, while prioritizing efforts to ensure everyone can realize their human rights. Such progressive, demand-side policies might include special taxes or bans for high carbon luxury goods and services; wider carbon prices with pro-poor revenue recycling; broader income and wealth redistribution; or challenging stereotypes that promote growth and individual consumerism as normal, desirable, 'powerful' and 'masculine'. Beyond cutting high income footprints alone, such measures may lead to a broader 'social tipping point' that makes reductions by other relatively high emitters more acceptable, challenges the political influence of high emitters, and sparks wider shifts in social, gendered and racial norms about endless consumption.
