 |
| Our starting point for this article: We needed to reduce our emissions by 18% a year, beginning in 2019. Of course, we now know that this is not what actually happened in 2019 so we now need to reduce our emissions even more steeply beginning in 2020. This will not be achieved by any easy measures which allow us, i.e. the relatively rich people who live in developed nations, to carry on our lives as usual, consuming more and more each year. We cannot rely upon negative emissions because the technology to achieve this does not exist. |
Our lack of action last years means, of course, that we now have to take even more drastic steps than were required a year ago. You can see what is required in the graph above. The red lines become steeper for each year that we wait before we take action. We now need to reduce our emissions not by just 18% per year but by more than 20% each year. Can we we do this ? Will we start to try to save ourselves ? Will I be back here in a year's time with the same message once again ?
 |
| Source: Oxfam |
It's quite well accepted that the richest people on the planet cause the most emissions. It's quite obvious why this is the case: the more that people earn, the more they spend and the more they consume. Higher income results in higher consumption and higher consumption results in higher emissions. Some products are more harmful than others, but anything extra that we buy has an impact.
There is a great inequality built into climate change. Half of all climate changing emissions result from the behaviour of the richest 10% of the population of the planet. The effects of the resultant climate change are, however, mostly felt by those who had little or no impact, with 99% of casualties so far being in developing countries.
 |
| If you earn over $58000 per year you make up part of the left-most green bar - the super polluters who produce more than 10x the global average emissions. If you earn less than that but more than $19300 then you're in the next highest column - with about 5x average emissions. |
Now comes the part which may surprise many readers of this blog. You are almost certainly in the 10% and you're quite likely to be one of the truly elite top 1%. You may not feel like a member of the elite and this may initially sound hyperbolic, but only 1% of the world's population earns more than $58000 per year so if your annual income is higher than US$58000 (equivalent to about 51000 euros or 43000 UK pounds) per year then you are in fact a member of the exclusive 1% club. i.e. in comparison with 99% of the world's population, you are the elite. If your annual salary is less than this, but still more than about $19300 (€17000 / 14300 pounds), then you're still in the top 10%. i.e. even people who earn minimum wage in many nations are still part of the top 10%.
(2021 update: original referred to slightly outdated source which gave $32400 / $13700 per year)
 |
| How will we answer future generations' questions? |
How should we react to this revelation ? To my mind it is clear that the people who can do most to reduce climate changing emissions are those whose emissions are highest in the first place. i.e. the elite few who earn in the top 1% or top 10% worldwide.
If we know that we're part of the group then we have a responsibility to do something. If people who are part of that group, who have choices in their behaviour and who are amongst the highest earners and highest emitters on this planet, can't be convinced or convince themselves to cut down on their consumption in order to emit less carbon, who then can we convince ?
Isn't it better to push someone else to make cuts?
Of course, the problems faced won't be solved by a few individuals acting alone. We actually need many individuals to recognise their part in this problem and act. Even then, if all the 1% eradicated all their emissions (perhaps by the "eat the rich" meme becoming reality) even that wouldn't eliminate more than at most about a fifth of the emissions. i.e. "eat the rich" as a policy would achieves just one year's worth of reduced emissions. But the rich are still personally responsible for a disproportionately large part of the problem so while they should use their voices to campaign for governments and big businesses alike to take action to control their emissions, and they should try to ensure that such things as pension funds are invested in ways such that they result in low or zero emissions (even if this might mean a lower pension), they also need to remember that it is only the relatively rich who even have such things as pension funds and given the extraordinary size of emissions per comparatively rich person they do have a responsibility to tackle the problem that they are causing.
For us to see a 20% annual reduction in emissions we need a change in the patterns of consumption of the richest people on the planet because anything else places far too much of a burden on the people who have the least to lose. If the richest 1-10% remain the biggest supporters of large polluting companies, the most enthusiastic consumers of steadily more of the planet destroying products made by those companies, happily consuming reassuring marketing greenwash from those companies while also continuing to buy their products, then they really have to take a good proportion of the blame for those products destroying the world on which we live.
We won't be able to do this without targeting consumers, especially the big consumers. The elite group who are lucky enough to have choices can change their behaviour and their doing so will make a disproportionate difference.
There is no way out of this without taking some personal responsibility. To reduce emissions we need to consume less. We probably also need to earn less to achieve this because as we've seen, people who can use their discretionary spending to consume and emit more than people who have fewer choices. We cannot rely upon rich philanthropists who otherwise pay very little tax deciding how much of their wealth they will give away and what should be funded. That does not result in an fair society. A tax system which reallocates wealth more equitably has to be part of any attempt to tackle the climate change.
How can it be ethical to hold onto a pattern of income and consumption which we know harms others ?
Leaving the club
I'd never ask anyone to do anything that I wouldn't. Personally, I left the 1% club on purpose nearly 20 years ago by choosing a different way of living. Initially I asked to work three days a week at my existing job, but this request was rejected so I stopped working in software development and did something else instead. I left the 10% club more recently, this step coming a little sooner than expected due to politics elsewhere.
Having a lower income does not necessarily mean living badly.
Those who are lucky enough to have a choice can in many cases make a decision to earn and consume less without any adverse effect on their lifestyle. For instance, opting to work four or three days a week in an existing job results in less income and lower consumption. It also means lower emissions because you spend less, and has the positives of less commuting and an extra 52 days of free time every year. Who wouldn't want that extra time to themselves ? Reducing one's income and stepping out of the 1% gives it to you.
Is there such a thing as "good" consumption?
 |
| We have a green self-image, but these things only help us to reduce emissions if they're part of a pattern of lowered consumption and we don't compensate by spending and emitting more in other parts of our lives. |
Of course this blog has generally had transport and cycling as a subject. Living car free results in instantly lowered costs and emissions. The most efficient vehicle on the planet is you using your own muscles to push the pedals of a bicycle. The bicycle is not only a very inexpensive form of transport which is compatible with living a lifestyle of lower consumption and lower emissions but also improves your well-being. Working fewer days per week leaves more time to enjoy it. But the task ahead of us enormous. Merely riding a bike a bit isn't enough.
Update September 2020. Oxfam and The Guardian work together to fudge the issue
Oxfam and SEI have published a report and the The Guardian has reported on it. Unfortunately, this report is rather misleading and the Guardian's reporting of it is even more so. The report authors used PPP (Purchasing power parity) income figures which the original report admits is not perfect (see page 33) but which The Guardian reported without any qualification thus: "Globally, the richest 10% are those with incomes above about $35,000 (£27,000) a year, and the richest 1% are people earning more than about $100,000."
Unfortunately, that is plain wrong. These figures don't correspond to any individual's actual income. PPP is an attempt to compare consumer side purchasing power of individuals across countries. What's more, the Guardian's conversion of $35K to £27K is a simple currency rate conversion which doesn't even take into account the higher prices in the UK. As the OECD suggests that prices are 21% higher in the UK than in the US, the correct conversion of $35K PPP is not £27K but £33K PPP.
However it is my view that this usage of PPP is simply incorrect so far as emissions due to income are concerned. PPP is nothing more than "an inflation rate that is equal to the price of the basket of goods at one location divided by the price of the basket of goods at a different location." The purpose of PPP is to make a comparison of the cost "to maintain a standard of living comparable to the US in terms of consumption." Note that this is a very US-centric measure. The basket of goods is based on US consumption patterns. There is no an attempt to allow for the fact that people in different countries buy different goods, that people in most countries buy much less and people in poorer countries buy far fewer of the expensive items which have similar prices worldwide. There is also no attempt to allow for emissions. All these things are beyond the remit of PPP.
If someone in a third world country can buy a loaf of bread for 20 cents while it costs someone in the US $2, that would push us towards a simple 10x difference in PPP while emissions are ignored, but the product consumed is unlikely to be have the same emissions in both cases. While it's highly likely that a relatively poor person will walk to a local bakery to collect bread, it is more likely that that a US citizen will buy their loaf by car. PPP does not allow for the likely difference in emissions due to apparently equivalent activities such as buying a loaf of bread which result from a person in one country being rich enough to consume vastly more energy and nor does it take account of richer people disposing of items more quickly. e.g. PPP makes no allowance for American citizens throwing away a vastly higher proportion of their food than people of other nations, nor that they buy, driver and dispose of far more cars than people of most other nations. All these things are also beyond the remit of PPP.
In the report, the effect of use of PPP salary figures is that it makes high western consumption seem more comparable to the far lower consumption figures for poorer countries. This is clearly playing down the much higher emissions of richer people, including those who are thought of as being relatively "poor" in richer countries but whose emissions are actually often quite high in comparison with poor people in poor countries. I find it a disingenuous way to make a comparison and one which in large part lets us in the richer nations off the hook. In reality, emissions are close to directly correlated to actual income levels, and top 10% salaries so far as emissions are concerned really do begin at something close to $19300 per year, no matter what country you live in.
Another quote from an Oxfam spokesman is also worth repeating: “this isn’t about people who have one family holiday a year." This is also highly misleading. 80% of the planet's population has never flown in an airplane. Not even once. Airliner manufacturers are counting on this because they want to grow their polluting trade. Those same people have also almost certainly never travelled long distances by other modes either. Anyone who takes "one family holiday" a year actually is doing something exceptional by world standards and producing an exceptional level of emissions as a result. Flying annually, or indeed taking long journeys by any other mode, is very much a top 10% habit. To reduce emissions from transport we have to travel less, not just change modes.
The Dutch Oxfam Novib website makes a similar mistake to that made by The Guardian, referring to an income of $38K as a top 10% salary and a salary of $109K as a top 1% salary. The 90% of the world's population which has lower emissions actually has a salary below $19300 and the figures they're quoting are again the result of a PPP comparison which makes us in the west seem less wealthy and less responsible for the damage that we're creating than we actually are.
 |
| This problem is caused by us. |
We can't go on blaming others. Let's look in a mirror once in awhile.
2021 update with new top 1% and top 10% salaries
The article above was based on the available data when it was written which was slightly outdated giving slightly lower than accurate top 1% and top 10% salary figures. But note that this was not enough to make redundant the point of the article, that most people in rich western nations make up a part of those high polluting groups. There is now a new source of data for the true level of top 1% and top 10% salary figures. The updated figures for 2021 are $19300 per year for a top 10% salary and $58000 for a top 1% salary. i.e. if you earn more than these figures then you make up part of that top 10% or perhaps top 1% of earners who are the biggest polluters on the planet. Sadly, Oxfam continue to this day to make use of misleading PPP figures, which cause most people who are part of these high earning groups not to realise that they are a part of those groups.
2023 update "Quantifying the human cost of global warming"
A recently published article in Nature quantifies the impact thus: "~2.7 average European Union citizens or ~1.2 average US citizens emit enough carbon in their lifetimes to expose one future person to unprecedented heat, and the average citizen of Qatar emits enough carbon in their lifetime to expose ~2.8 future people to unprecedented heat. Those future people tend to be in nations that today have per capita emissions around the 25% quantile." i.e. it's us. The average consumers. Our lifestyles kill people. Yes, the super rich are worse than us. We knew that. But that they are so unbelievably terrible doesn't give average consumers in the west a free pass.
Luckily there are more ways to achieve comfortable lifestyle and reduce consumption at the same time. Most important one is probably to move from suburban house to urban flat. Urban person generally has less need for moving around daily, so oil-burning for mobility reasons gets strongly reduced. Also, flats use much less energy for warming and heating than stand-alone houses, and that's another important consumption-reduction.
ReplyDeleteZmau: I'm not convinced that encouraging people to live in urban flats is automatically a good idea.
ReplyDeleteI'm not against the idea of flats. We're actually in the lucky position of owning two homes, a house and a flat, both buildings being of similar ages and construction methods. There's a stark difference in what we've been able to achieve with the two properties: While we've been able to do anything we wanted with the house to improve its efficiency and so we have done all those things, with enormous gains as a result, the same is not true at all of the flat because we don't have full control over it. Instead, all changes have to be brought up in meetings, agreed with all other owners, have to fit everyone's budgets at the same time and all work has to be carried out by particular contractors which further raise the price thus making it less likely that any particular piece of work will be done. The result is that little can be done to improve energy efficiency in the flat. It's difficult to do more than such things as changing the light bulbs in communal areas of the flats (this is a real example which came up for the third year running in the annual meeting of the owners association last night). Flats have the potential be more energy efficient because there is no air gap between neighbours so no heat loss there, but in practice our house is twice the size of the flat but consumes less energy. That's both gas for heating and also less electricity: We have solar panels on the roof of our house which generate more electricity than we use, but unfortunately no-one has been able to work out a mutually agreeable way to place solar panels on the roof of the apartment block so it's not happened there.
Now there are opportunities for flats to become more efficient and we've an interesting example about one km from our home which over a couple of years was converted into a "zero on the meter" building. This project was given a substantial subsidy which will never have to be repaid, but the process of renovation went way over budget costing almost the value of each apartment per apartment. As a result, rather than reducing the monthly service costs (which include centralized heating), those costs have almost doubled and each resident now has to find over €300 to pay as service costs on top of their rent / mortgage.
Personally, I like living as I do in a house in "the 'burbs". We have plenty of space, we can do such things as grow some of our own food, our dog is less likely to annoy the neighbours and because we have the freedom to work on our own home in any way we like, we have been able to reduce its energy consumption to the point where it is considerably lower than even the average small flat in this country.
We of course live without a car. What's more, because we're only 2.5 km from the city centre we don't live far enough away to get enough exercise from everyday activities. Being closer to the centre would not be helpful to us. Due to the short distances that we have now we already actually have to cycle more than for daily needs alone merely to get enough exercise to stay healthy.
BTW, demolishing buildings and starting again can result in lower emissions once their built, but the enormous environmental cost of pouring concrete to do this means that it's almost certainly more environmentally damaging than renovating an existing building.
It seems shortsighted to quit your job. You could have kept your job and donated your excess salary to poverty related Charities. Global poverty kills millions every year so giving up the opportunity to donate money to bring people above $2 a day is effectively letting people die.
ReplyDeleteConsuming less is a good idea, but quiting your job is not the right way to do this.
https://80000hours.org/
I was expecting such an answer. All that you wrote is truth for your case, but you are serious enthusiast. Most people are not such enthusiasts, and most of them (including even me) would perform better in an environment with better starting performance, and less need for upgrade.
ReplyDeleteSo, let this dialog serve as invitation for each reader to think about what's optimal solution in her/his particular case :). One thing is for sure : use existing buildings, don't buy/construct new ones.
Dan: Whether remaining in a well paid job for a company which probably also has a high carbon footprint while sending money to the poor actually achieves the aim of taking people permanently out of poverty is something I'm not entirely convinced of, but giving a proportion of your income to charity is of course laudable. Many people do of course already this.
ReplyDeleteYour link is to an organisation which according to their website "started in 2011" and is aimed at people aged 20-35. I was having these ideas more than ten years before that. It was in 2003 when I was already nearly 40 when I stopped working in software, not to stop doing anything at all but to do more worthwhile things with my time.
For instance, by the time I changed what I did I had already given up many summer holidays to do cycle promotion work around the UK and I was already planning the cycling study tours which we operated between 2006 and 2018 (i.e. before anyone else was doing the same). I also created the first cycling infrastructure youtube videos to encourage good practice and I've spent many years and many thousands of hours providing information here, for free, about what actually works to encourage people to cycle as well as pointing out where things do not work so well in the Netherlands. Unfortunately that effort has now been swamped by people who paint an eternally rose tinted view, in which everything documented this week is more wonderful than everything that was discussed last week - some funded by the Dutch government. This is an export opportunity after all.
I also worked for a while for a company which makes one of the most efficient vehicles on the planet and helped some old colleagues with their smart meter design, which of course we all hope will help people to monitor and reduce their consumption of energy.
Anyway, it remains my view that changing what you do is very much the right thing to do for many people. No-one needs more of everything all the time. Greed was one of the seven deadly sins for a reason - we're seeing the result of this worldwide now. It really is leading to "not just some, but all evil" (I'm an atheist BTW).
We need to reduce consumption amongst the people who consume most. That's really the most important thing any of us can do and it's the reason why I wrote the blog post above. It remains my view that people redeploying themselves from well paid but less important work to more satisfying but less well paid work, or even less of the same work, is one of the best things any of us can do for the planet.
zmau: Yes, I agree that I'm a "serious enthusiast" compared with most. However, every house on our street has had at least one upgrade in the time we've lived here and most have had several. We have watched as our neighbours installed insulation in their walls and under the floor, as windows have been upgraded, as solar panels also arrived on about half of the neighbour's roofs. I doubt that any of the neighbours have energy bills as low as ours, but I could be wrong about that.
ReplyDeleteOf course not everything is positive. It's also the case that many more cars have been bought and that because most people buy a lot of stuff they also throw away a lot and most manage to fill up their bins (we have little in ours). However I don't think those aspects would be very different if our neighbours lived in flats.
As I said before, I'm not against the idea of flats at all. They do offer potentially higher energy efficiency. However I don't think it's all one way or the other. We're likely to have a mix of types of housing and types of ownership forever and we're both agreed that demolishing and rebuilding likely does more harm than good in the long run. The Netherlands is particularly bad from that point of view, BTW. Many buildings don't last more than 50 years or so, and some are demolished even sooner. Our railway station was replaced after less than 30 years, for instance.