midian182

Posts: 10,165   +135
Staff member
In a nutshell: The world is trying to cut down on carbon emissions through the likes of renewable energies and other environmentally friendly initiatives. But it seems one of the best ways to reduce these planet-warming gases would be for billionaires such as Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos to stop using their private jets and yachts so much. According to a new report, members of the super-rich create the same amount of carbon emissions in 90 minutes that an average person does over their entire lifetime.

Oxfam, the British NGO that focuses on addressing global poverty, published a report examining carbon inequality. It looks at how the yachts, jets, and polluting investments of 50 of the world's richest billionaires are accelerating the climate crisis.

The results make for startling reading. Oxfam identified private jets belonging to 23 of the 50 richest people in the world and found that, on average, these billionaires each took 184 flights – spending 425 hours in the air – in 2023. That was equal to an average of 2,074 tonnes of carbon a year, or as much carbon as the average person would produce in 300 years, or 2,000 years' worth for someone in the global poorest 50%.

As bad as jets are, superyachts are worse. Oxfam found that the average annual carbon footprint of each of the 23 yachts belonging to 18 billionaires to be 5,672 tonnes, three times the emissions of their private jets. This is equivalent to 860 years of emissions for the average person.

Across a 12-month period, Jeff Bezos' two private jets spent almost 25 days in the air, releasing as much carbon as a US Amazon employee would emit in 207 years. In the same period, Elon Musk's two private jets generated 5,497 tonnes of carbon dioxide, or an average of 15 tonnes per day. That's the equivalent of 11 average people's emissions across their entire lifetimes.

It's not just the their luxury toys polluting the world. Of the 50 billionaires examined in the study, around 40% of their investments were in emissions-intensive industries like oil, mining, and shipping, with average emissions of around 2.6 million tonnes of CO2 equivalents. That's around 340 times their emissions from private jets and superyachts combined, and each billionaire's investment emissions are equivalent to almost 400,000 years of consumption emissions by the average person.

The bottom line is that Musk, Bezos, and other billionaires individually create more carbon dioxide in 90 minutes than average people do in their entire lives.

Oxfam writes that in the coming century, 1.5 million excess deaths will be caused by the consumption emissions of the richest 1% – those with incomes of at least $140,000 – between 2015 and 2019.

"This report shows that fairer taxes on extreme wealth are crucial to accelerate climate action and fight inequality – starting with private jets and superyachts," said Chiara Liguori, Oxfam's senior climate justice policy adviser. "It's clear these luxury toys aren't just symbols of excess; they're a direct threat to people and the planet."

Permalink to story:

 
We're gonna be another notch in nature's long list of creatures that survived so well they drove themselves extinct.
 
Omg, a Climate change article masquerading as a "hate rich people" article. The planets already dead, now we're just waiting for the impact of climate change to hit us. And if you don't believe in climate change, well, your insurance company does.

So drink a beer and go have fun because the world is going to look very different at the end of our lives
 
Government is the biggest polluter.
 
I am totally fine when very wealthy people are concerned that "their" planet is being hurt by humans.
I am not ok when they will do nothing to change it themselves, expecting the burden to be taken by less fortunate.
I have disdain to them when they do this. This is some sort of selfish stupidity, kinda like you are eating as x10 people, but warning others to not take a lot of food from the shelf because there might be a shortage.

The only question I have is, why do people accept these individuals as the leaders in climate fight?
Aren't they the ones that destroy it the most?
 
How about taxing mega yachts heavily.
Those that can afford them will still get them. Everyone else is unaffected.

And let's face it, noone needs a big boat of which the sole purpose is entertaining a very small group of people.
If they do it on land instead that's a lot emissions saved already.
Then again it's the rich so they'll get around it by reclassifying their yacht as a luxury cruiser or some bs. Did the article even include the emissions needed to create that much metal? Wouldn't be surprised if that's more than it would ever produce as it surely must be sitting anchored most of the time anyway.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure Musk no longer believes in climate change after his recent conversion therapy.
 
The oceans, in this world, contribute more to climate change than any other source. It's certainly NOT human beings, to the degree that these wackos running the green new scam, say they are.
 
But they are more important than the average person, so these figures must be taken in context.
 
The oceans, in this world, contribute more to climate change than any other source. It's certainly NOT human beings, to the degree that these wackos running the green new scam, say they are.

Can you expand on this comment, as maybe not so obvious to some of us

So the oceans started the warming trend around the start of the Industrial Revolution - how??
Can you point me to the science
What are the predictions ongoing for this. Will the oceans still keep doing the fastest ever warming period ever going back a long way.

What happened to start the Ocean warming .

Awaiting your take and citations

Will be great to know when the Oceans might change their collective minds and start cooling the planet
Yet another 1 in century flood in Spain

Science normally has cause and effect and you are able to make predictions, so don't leave as hanging like climate deniers always do , ****post and run knowing that their overlords the big polluters believe in none of the dis-information they give the gullible - Otherwise ergo they would be putting this forward left, right and center - maybe they lack the budget
Ie show me one study peer review from Big polluters in last couple years countering climate change.
Or are they being bullied ??
 
Hey, I've been saying this for a long time. The rich keep telling us we plebs have to cut back on our carbon footprints, but do you ever see them doing the same? Oh no, that doesn't happen. Another example of... rules for thee, but not for me.

Oh yeah, flying with us plebs isn't as lavish as flying on your own private jet. Cry me a river. *holds up middle finger*
 
"Oxfam, the British NGO that focuses on addressing global poverty"

The preferred method of addressig poverty is by creating a program (never-ending) which transfers a significant percentage of funds into the NGO's personal pockets. History shows that this is what happens, tiem and time again.
 
The hypocrisy of the super rich climate change advocates has done more to discredit the cause than anything else.
Bingo. When I start seeing them cut back, then I'll believe it. Until then, f**k the green sh*t.
 
Can you expand on this comment, as maybe not so obvious to some of us

So the oceans started the warming trend around the start of the Industrial Revolution - how??
Can you point me to the science
What are the predictions ongoing for this. Will the oceans still keep doing the fastest ever warming period ever going back a long way.

What happened to start the Ocean warming .

Awaiting your take and citations

Will be great to know when the Oceans might change their collective minds and start cooling the planet
Yet another 1 in century flood in Spain

Science normally has cause and effect and you are able to make predictions, so don't leave as hanging like climate deniers always do , ****post and run knowing that their overlords the big polluters believe in none of the dis-information they give the gullible - Otherwise ergo they would be putting this forward left, right and center - maybe they lack the budget
Ie show me one study peer review from Big polluters in last couple years countering climate change.
Or are they being bullied ??
Google it.
 
You mean the super rich play by different rules and recycling is bullshit because my portion of pollution is irrelevant next to the super rich? Shocking.
 
Some very questionable numbers there, it looks like some of these jets/yachts manage to produce more carbon dioxide than the fuel they burn - some weird science producing carbon from thin air.
 
Can you expand on this comment, as maybe not so obvious to some of us

So the oceans started the warming trend around the start of the Industrial Revolution - how??
Can you point me to the science
What are the predictions ongoing for this. Will the oceans still keep doing the fastest ever warming period ever going back a long way.

What happened to start the Ocean warming .

Awaiting your take and citations

Will be great to know when the Oceans might change their collective minds and start cooling the planet
Yet another 1 in century flood in Spain

Science normally has cause and effect and you are able to make predictions, so don't leave as hanging like climate deniers always do , ****post and run knowing that their overlords the big polluters believe in none of the dis-information they give the gullible - Otherwise ergo they would be putting this forward left, right and center - maybe they lack the budget
Ie show me one study peer review from Big polluters in last couple years countering climate change.
Or are they being bullied ??

Well, they only started using accurate measuring tools during that time, so the data is pretty limited given the earths age. We do know it's been a lot warmer AND a lot cooler than today, multiple times in its history. We know the current ice caps have only existed for a relatively short amount of time in that history. We are after all, still coming out of the last ice age, so it's not unexpected that the oceans will warm.

The words "saving the plant" are disingenuous. The planet has been through a LOT worse than us and survived. It will still be here long after we're gone. (Although I suspect we'll adapt to whatever comes, providing we haven't killed each other.) What we really mean when we talk of all this, is there is a strong possibility that we are altering the conditions in which humans thrive, but we aren't literally destroying the planet.
 
I hope we'll be ready to give up a lot of luxuries some of these rich people have given us. They're the ones that own businesses that gives us our toys too.

Why don't we see their study in the same article about commercial airlines contribution to emissions too? Perhaps she just hates rich people as the last paragraph seems to imply.
 
Google it.
I'd like to think that in proper discourse, a claimant should be capable of and honestly expected to support their opinions and stances when challenged by providing information and evidence that enabled them to qualify the statement in the first place.

That responsibility should not be shifted to the recipient/audience, in particular when not only is the statement difficult to qualify with a quick trip to google (without knowing how you precisely researched your information), but also when you cannot assume the receiving parties have the same level of knowledge or understanding that you purport to have.

(These are just my thoughts on whenever someone tells another to do their own research on a subject, rather than telling someone to check for themselves an easily quantifiable fact like the distance from the earth to the moon or the boiling point of iron, ~384,400 km and 2862 C respectively).
 
Well, they only started using accurate measuring tools during that time, so the data is pretty limited given the earths age. We do know it's been a lot warmer AND a lot cooler than today, multiple times in its history. We know the current ice caps have only existed for a relatively short amount of time in that history. We are after all, still coming out of the last ice age, so it's not unexpected that the oceans will warm.

The words "saving the plant" are disingenuous. The planet has been through a LOT worse than us and survived. It will still be here long after we're gone. (Although I suspect we'll adapt to whatever comes, providing we haven't killed each other.) What we really mean when we talk of all this, is there is a strong possibility that we are altering the conditions in which humans thrive, but we aren't literally destroying the planet.

I think this argument is mostly sophism and changing the fundamental assumptions

Yes of course the planet will survive, for very early times there was practically no oxygen in the air- there is still life on earth that does not need oxygen or photosynthesis in the food chain etc

But the main assumption is from the rise of mammals to now.
We are now in one of the biggest mass extinction periods ever .
We a bunch a very serious tipping points arise we will dramatically change the planet , eg loss of thermofrost in Siberia and release of methane , lost of Larsen Ice shelf etc etc

Of course well off humans will survive, F everything else - God gave us dominion to use , abuse as we see fit, and she can come back and make it alright - how I detest those people for their righteous sanctimonious destruction and suffering

All these other warmer or colder times had a reason, eg earth core was a hot mess, huge meteors blocking out sun for years etc

All I asked why is the Ocean causing the warming , what a sodium reaction , hot vents from the centre of the earth , reflecting less light back . I just asked for a reply than usual hit and run BS

The fact of the matter up to now the oceans have saved us from higher atmospheric temps , as it is a huge thermal heat sink - simple physics heat up 1 litre of air or one litre of water . Unfortunately it's reaching its limits

Waxing philosophically and taking a nihilistic approach is a bit rich, like you do this in other parts of your life when others seek to exploit or abuse you . Oh just the way it is, you just have to accept it

Anyway man made climate change passed the gold std of proof 6 years ago , and is no longer contested as an overall statement. We caused this problem that wipes out whole biomes , that brings misery to the poor and many developing countries . Ethics say waxing lyrically is not an option , we have a duty of care to do better
 
Anyway man made climate change passed the gold std of proof 6 years ago , and is no longer contested as an overall statement. We caused this problem that wipes out whole biomes , that brings misery to the poor and many developing countries . Ethics say waxing lyrically is not an option , we have a duty of care to do better
And I understand that, but if I have to cut back on my resource usage, then everyone needs to cut back. And I don't care if you're just some random person living in Somewhereville or a rich person making more than 6 figures, everyone needs to cut back.

If I have to fly commercial to get somewhere, so does the businessman and world-wide celebrity. If I have to drive a smaller car to reduce my carbon footprint, then yes... that also means the businessman and world-wide celebrity has to as well. If I have to live in a smaller house, so does the businessman and world-wide celebrity; there's no reason why they need some Godawful huge mansion with twenty damn bedrooms!

None of this... rules for thee and not for me bullsh*t. Everyone needs to do it or I'm just going to call bullsh*t on all of this green sh*t.
 
The fact of the matter up to now the oceans have saved us from higher atmospheric temps , as it is a huge thermal heat sink - simple physics heat up 1 litre of air or one litre of water . Unfortunately it's reaching its limits
This is simply not true. The specific heat capacity of liquid water varies a fraction of a percent until it changes state. That is the actual metric of how much heat any matter can absorb as it rises by a unit of temperature.

Unless the oceans are literally boiling, the ocean will continue to function as an effective thermal buffer and they will not “reach their limits” in moderating atmospheric temperatures lol.
 

Similar threads