Back to Treehugger and Lloyd’s post, “Individual Actions Can Reduce Emissions Up to 70%, Says IPCC Report.” Where two Liberty-minded folks (such thorns in their socialist sides) decide to zero in on another part of Lloyd’s outing of himself.
First, the Setup:
Changes in diet are a particularly interesting example because small-scale changes can add up to big carbon savings. The report states: “Current literature on health, diets and emissions indicates that sustainable food systems providing healthy diets for all are within reach but require significant cross-sectoral action, including improved agricultural practices, dietary shifts among consumers, and food waste reductions in production, distribution, retail, and consumption.”1 It can all add up to as much as 5.8 gigatonnes per year—a big chunk of the emissions gap.1 That’s all through eating and raising less red meat and dairy, not wasting food, and not eating more than we need.
The report also points out that “implementation of these solutions requires combinations of institutional infrastructural, behavioral, socio-cultural, and business changes.” We have to change the way we live, work, buy, and eat. But all of this is doable with the right mix of incentives and disincentives, using what they call “choice architecture,” which “describes the presentation of choices to consumers, and the impact that presentation has on consumer decision-making.”
And of course, much of the problem has to do with inequality—how the top 10% are responsible for half the carbon, with the average carbon footprint of the richest being 175 times that of the bottom 10%. The bottom 50% contribute just 15% of emissions.
…Readers must think that I have lost it completely, suggesting we have the problem solved—that we can get the 10% and the 1% to change their way of life so radically in a couple of years. I preemptively respond by noting it is actually not that radical at all, especially for the richest people who have the most choices.
Sure, if EVERYONE suddenly decided to change their ways, go vegan, downsize to Tiny Homes or live in micro-apartments in an overstuffed, crime-ridden, smelly city and consumed little, the above might meet the “individual action” bit of the posts title. That’s about as real as me winning the lottery or becoming the next POTUS. Which is to say, nil. And the higher up the economic food chain you go, I would imagine the less apt it would be for a voluntary change. Why throw everything away after spending years of time and talent to live a better life for oneself and family?
Once again, Socialism shows that it is completely ignorant of human behavior – unless it is forced upon someone. With his EAT THE RICH manifesto, he makes it clear, like all eco-socialists, that choice isn’t going to be part of the 1%’s future.
Vindaloo Bugaboo agrees:
Readers must think that I have lost it completely, suggesting we have the problem solved—that we can get the 10% and the 1% to change their way of life so radically in a couple of years.
Not at all, Lloyd. It’s merely a suggestion, same as I suggest to my girlfriend that we should have chinois potato puree with truffle cream, foie gras, and Wagyu ribeye for dinner tonight. But getting the 10%, let alone 1%, to change their standards of living (face it, that’s really what you’re talking about here) in a couple of years is ludicrous.
Yes, he was being sarcastic (like me). Some might – most won’t. And VB points out that it is the West that forms almost all of that entire 10%. From the World Inequality Database: (abstracted):
- An average adult individual earns USD23,380 per year in 2021
- The average adult has assets of USD102,600 [their wealth – Skip].
- On average, an individual from the top 10% of the global income distribution earns USD122,100 per year
- On average, an individual from the top 10% of the global income distribution has assets of USD771,300.
Note: the people behind that database are also all about having Governments, like Obama, “spreading the wealth around” but it at least has some data.
But the real question isn’t why doesn’t everyone earn the same income and have the same wealth in this case for me, it’s “what are the limits”? Obama famously said “at some point, you’ve made enough money”. Nice for the rubes but his wealth has kept on climbing since leaving the Presidency – apparently he has wealth limits for everyone except himself (and his pals, I guess). But that’s on the upswing.
My question is “what is the limit on the downswing – unless the whole exercise of Lloyd is to downsize everyone (probably):
Lloyd’s already shown his Socialist face with his “EAT THE RICH” line (a coupla/few times here on TH). In this, his solution may be quite easy – just follow the suggestion made by Nelson6666.
Now, I think Nelson6666 is aiming for that final solution that’s been tried before. Problem is, there’s a ready-made replacement set of Rich right behind them.
Socialism is a governmental form that recognizes no limits on itself (even as Lloyd et al is demanding limits on the rest of us – do with that line as you wish).
But I don’t put Lloyd in the same category as Nelson6666 as far as process – Lloyd’s more of the kind of regulators that will “legally” steal that wealth and leave them destitute. You know, like Govts are taking over the Russian oligarchs superyachts even if they’ve had no connection to Putin’s “little military incursion”.
But he still has the same problem – what to do when the next 1%ers rises up into view?
So what’s the limit you have in mind – that the current 50% will become the new 1%?
Remember this: in capitalism, the rich become powerful. In socialism, the powerful become rich. So which is your poison, Lloyd? Where does your balance beam stop (or is it like a teeter-totter like when the fat kid gets off the other end?)?
Where do you end it?
For context, commenter Nelson6666 is all about reducing the world’s population from its current level to 2 billion – or was that 200 million? Either way, he’s happy to kill everyone else off. He doesn’t like it, though, when I keep reminding him that he should be leading from the front by example.
Such a humorless guy, he is.
