Musk, Bezos need just 90 minutes to match your lifetime carbon footprint, says Oxfam Despite their self-professed environmental bona fides, tech billionaires like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and the their ilk are responsible for so much carbon emissions that the average person would need a lifetime to match the amount one of them spews in 90 minutes. That's the claim from international nonprofit Oxfam, which …
I can't throw stones. If I had $megabux I probably wouldn't give a damn either.
Hell, just not having to be felt up by TSA agents is worth the dough. Or not having to worry about lost luggage. Or not sitting on a runway for 3 hours. Or an airline employee not liking the color of your skin or your accent or the fact you're Jewish and having the rozzers toss you in gaol. Or having someone tell you you don't have a ticket after you paid $450 for one. Or having to sit in vomit smeared seats.
The more I think about it, the more power to 'em, and the less I personally give a damn about the planet.
If you want better airline service, vote with your wallet - CNN.com
U.S. airlines overhaul overbooking after United fiasco | Reuters
Tired of Traditional Travel? Tough.
My Mexican Husband Was Accused Of Trafficking Our Daughter On A United Flight | The Huffington Post
Belfast airport turns away wheelchair user due to repair kit - BBC News
BBC's Frank Gardner left stuck on Heathrow plane for a second time - BBC News
Paraplegic man drags himself through airport - BBC News
Man kicked off Canada plane over 'sleeping pill' - BBC News
Delta apologizes after man sits in feces on flight
DOT fines Southwest $200,000 for fare ad violations
American Airlines apologizes to mom, baby kicked off flight for skin condition | Fox News
Spirit Airlines booted teen from flight without mom's knowledge, lawsuit alleges | Fox News
These Are the Airlines Most Likely to Lose Your Luggage | Mental Floss
Couple claims United Airlines unfairly kicked them off flight: 'We were traumatized' | Fox News
Food allergies on airplanes: Horror stories from 35,000 feet | CNN Travel
I got bumped from a flight. Then I sued - CNN.com
Coronavirus: Man with chronic asthma forced to wear mask on plane - BBC News
WestJet cancels flight because of mask dispute with child - BBC News
British Airways accused of snubbing refund request - BBC News
Blind man, dog kicked off US Airways flight; passengers follow | CNN
What’s driving the US air-rage spike? - BBC Worklife
Frank Gardner: 'It happened again' - Why are wheelchair-users left on planes? - BBC News
Lufthansa bans Apple AirTags on checked bags • The Register
Odell Beckham Jr: Wide receiver removed from plane before take-off at Miami Airport - BBC Sport
Southwest promotes key staff despite Christmas meltdown • The Register
US investigates Delta over plane stuck on tarmac in extreme heat - BBC News
Air Canada kicks off passengers who refused vomit-smeared seats - BBC News
Bedford MP stopped from boarding flight 'because name is Mohammad' - BBC News
Air Canada accused of forcing man with cerebral palsy to drag himself off plane - BBC News
Airports told to stop failing disabled passengers - BBC News
Disabled flyers angry at airline 'double charging' - BBC News
Southwest Airlines fined $140m for holiday meltdown
US fines Southwest Airlines $140M for 2022 IT meltdown • The Register
American Airlines keeps mistaking 101-year-old passenger for baby
Super Bowl winner 'wrongly handcuffed' on United Airlines flight
BBC's Frank Gardner forced to crawl to toilet on plane
Canada's top court upholds passenger protection rules for flight disruptions
Lufthansa hit with record penalty after barring Jewish passengers
No, no, no, no, and no! TeSsA kurAGi is NOT the same person as TSA AGent! (they don't even sound that similar!)
Oxfam loves to produce nice click-baity reports, but let's be clear that even Musk's excess is dwarfed by the global use of resources. We could have him taken out and shot and it would make not the slightest difference to global warming.
It's nice to have bogeymen to point at and blame for all the world's ills, but it's the difficult stuff like dealing with energy poverty in the developing nations and the geo-political complications of China that will ultimately make a difference. In those terms, Musk and Bezos are neither the root of the problem, nor do they particularly offer any solution.
That said, it would be interesting to do a carbon analysis of Amazon, which has (possibly?) reduced the per-item-mile delivery footprint of individual purchased items massively over the historical cost which involved people driving into town to do their shopping. Of course, for the general population the response to that saving is to buy more stuff, not sit back and benefit from the savings. Should we be blaming Bezos for that?
I know that y'all hate on Musk now that he as a political opinion you dislike. It was epic watching the meltdown of the luvvies as they got rid of their Teslas.
He is just one of many elites that jet around, like that leftie favourite vaccine expert Bill Gates, climate czar John Kerry, Leo DeCaprio, Taylor Swift. Somehow they are all exempt from your ire as they spout the right nonce-sense. Heck even Lizzo flew into Detroit for her few mins of ass kissing.
"and I know why you're at war with Swift"
Why do you think that criticising someone for flying around on a private jet means being at war with them?
"the leader said 'get mad at girls who don't like us'"
Lie. It is the political left stoking the hatred and division. Just look at the last few days.
"but who the hell is Lizzo?"
A supposed musician who claims she likes Detroit but doesn't live there.
Couldn't agree more.
I would add that although eliminating the ultra-rich (be they industrialists or celebrities) won't have any significant impact on global carbon emissions, it's the example they set that's the problem, because that's what determines the aspirations of the masses and defines what society considers to be success. Most people will never be ultra-rich, but many will get to the point where they have disposable income. As people get more of that they buy a bigger house, a bigger car, another car, more clothes they don't need, eat more meat (especially beef, that brown coal of the food industry), fly somewhere distant and exotic to go on holiday where they stay in a resort that likely has very dubious eco credentials.
In an ideal world, we'd redefine what success looks like. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world.
It also grates when they fly off to a conference to tell the rest of us to reduce our consumption for the sake of the environment.
> especially beef, that brown coal of the food industry
I just bought some local grass fed beef. That has a very different environmental impact to grain fed beef.
Grass fed beef is primarily good for animal welfare. It has a much higher environmental impact than lot reared cattle, albeit the welfare of the latter is considerably lower.
Grass fed beef (which I also buy incidentally) is a rich world hobby. As a means of supplying protein and calories to the world's population at a price they can afford it's a non-starter.
It also takes up a lot of land which could be put to more effective use for carbon capture, for example as woodland.
Finally, (almost) all grass fed animals are "finished" on high protein feed made from soya grown on cleared rainforest.
And billionaires too, whether grass-fed or grain-fed, their growth environment was one of superb animal welfare, and terrible environmental impact, and they take up a lot of land that could be reforested instead ... Can't just let such a savory source of chunky proteins go to waste though, it's ripe time to ... Eat the rich! (IMHO)
"Grass fed beef (which I also buy incidentally) is a rich world hobby. "
Ahh, so you agree there are too many people banging off the walls.
The world population is already overshot so supplying protein and calories to the world's population is just adding to the problem. As the price of petroleum fuels continue to rise, the numbers of people starving will rise as well. There's no way humans can continue expending large amounts of petroleum to grow food. It's already bad in that highly bastardized forms of food plants are employed to get the most tonnage from each hectare no matter the long term costs.
The true rich world hobby is "organic". Some of my dinner tonight was organically grown...... in my own garden. There's no way the amount of labor I put into it and the paltry yield per unit area could scale up to what it takes to feed very many people.
Feedlot beef is a North American thing largely.
Although the practice is spreading - after much protestation it won’t happen here- it’s pretty uncommon in UK/Eire/EU.
https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/29/revealed-industrial-scale-beef-farming-comes-to-the-uk
"Feedlot beef is a North American thing largely."
The problem is that cattle are sold by weight on-the-hoof so "finishing" gets their weight up without adding too much fat. It takes no account of quality which won't be known until butchering (more or less). With rising costs, I've been cutting back and I do a lot of pies where I can stretch the beef with lentils, mushrooms, tatties, etc. A nice steak is reserved for special occasions and fast food burgers are getting so expensive, they're a treat as well since I can do a steak dinner at home for around the same price.
I'm a fan of grass fed beef without finishing. To me, it tastes better. If I could find some neighbors to go in on a 1/4-1/2 cow, I might want to try that.
"In an ideal world, we'd redefine what success looks like. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world."
This a thousand times.
We in the west are utterly obsessed with GDP and keeping up with the Jones'
I used to earn a really good salary, lived in a lovely house, in a lovely village and I fucking hated it.
Everyone try to have the flashiest big 4x4, out do each other with marvellous holidays, have the biggest house and bore the utter crap out of you with their latest "thing", be it purchase or work related.
Now I'm permanently broke, I've just had to bodge the wiring on my 105,000 little i10 so I can get to work tomorrow, I live in a 1 bed (admittedly lovely) rented apartment, with 90% of my possessions being old or second hand. But
I'm surrounded by amazing art, I go out to live events as much as possible, I've become friends with really interesting people such as artists, graffiti writers, designers and musicians
I've probably never been more content in my life.
"I used to earn a really good salary, lived in a lovely house, in a lovely village and I fucking hated it."
All of those things have a very subjective definition. What IS a really good salary? What is a lovely house and what is a lovely village? Most importantly, by whose definition. I'd love to have more money, live in a nicer home and could probably find a city or area that I'd like even more, but I'm not unhappy where I am. Everything is paid off although it can use some work which proceeds slowly due to budgets and that I'm getting older and can't do as much of the work myself. I don't try to keep up with the Jones'. I'd rather travel to see a few concerts from time to time than own a new car. I've always worked in jobs, often self-employed, to pursue things that I enjoy doing and can pay me enough to tick off the most important things (like buying a home). Unlike Slartibartfast, I think I've found enough of a balance.
I don't know about you, but my aspirations are not defined by people like Musk. I'm vegan. Give me a billion dollars and I will still be vegan. I will still go on holiday to the same places and stay in AirBnB apartments to live like the locals. I would pursue the same hobbies. My house would be bigger simply to avoid hearing neighbour noise and the largest part would be the solar-powered glass house giving a home to endangered plants. And if I was that rich, I would be spreading the cash, improving peoples' lives and opportunities.
Some notable rich people are unpleasant, but maybe it isn't the wealth. Maybe they were always like that. Maybe they started off as unpleasant poorer people and the only thing that changed was the number in their bank account.
The stats reeks of headline-grabbing BS. Blaming people for their investments is bizarre. Investments are driven by the market or there isn't any point in investing. The problem is that fossil pays. The sanctions on Russia massively increased the profit of the fossil industry and will keep it rich (and ordinary people cold in the winter). The media might cover it up by not mentioning it, but the stupidity of our politicians knows no bounds. Russia is progressively buying the Global South and its resources with cheap oil, the West having given him the opportunity.
If liberals are dumping Teslas and the EU are surcharging Chinese EV imports, EVs may be on the way out. It seems politics is more important than climate change.
Thanks for writing this out. It reinforces the idea of the possibility of real representation--the idea that it is possible to find someone who well represents one's own position, a person who could be voted into government to push policy in the right direction.
Pour encourager les autres is a phrase that comes from a nation that had an innovative and effective solution to wealth hoarding.
Spouting trite dismissals such as "politics of envy," as has predictably been rolled out in these comments already, doesn't do anything to tackle the fact that the difference between wealth and extreme wealth is many orders of magnitude. If I earned £1,000 a day, I'd expect people to be envious of me, as I'd be able to live pretty comfortably on that. It would still take 3,000 years for me to be as wealthy as Musk if I gained wealth at that rate, and he got no richer. Musk could give that much money to everyone commenting on this article, every day, for the rest of their lives, and not materially notice any degradation of his lifestyle.
It has fuck all to do with envy, and everything to do with a system where a very small number of people effectively hoard, and waste, the planet's resources to the detriment of absolutely everyone else, including their simps. For the sake of the future of the human race, those people need to be stopped, and soon.
“aspirations of the masses”
Indeed, everyone just carrying on as normal.
Veuling Airlines’ current ad campaign promotes flying places because “you deserve it”.
There are many who will not deserve floods and wildfires destroying their lives.
NO.
Grow a brain.
If you want to exercise you dont need to drive 30mins to the gym, walk around your local neighbourhood.
THis is just one example of morons driving for everything in their life.
Wnat another ?
Water.
Open your tap, dont fucking drive to the shop to buy water. If you cant drink from the tap, then get your local government to fix the problem instead of waving flags and telling everyone how patriotic you are.
Who is driving 30 minutes to a gym? I don't even go to a gym, I get my exercise from working an allotment. Incidentally, I do need a car to drive there, because it's on the other side of the city I live in, due to availability of allotments, and I don't think my landlord would be very happy about me composting food waste in the building he owns.
It probably says a lot more about you, that you assume people are driving to gyms for exercise, or drinking lots of bottled water. The limiting factors for most people are available time and resources, scarcity, or affordability of public transport, or safe drinking water.
Incidentally, one of the biggest things a lot of industrialised countries could do to reduce carbon emissions overnight would be to mandate that employees can work from home where practicable, rather than commuting to offices. It is hardly worth mentioning that Musk is on the opposite side of this argument, and that commercial landlords and privatised public transport providers have obvious vested interests here.
ElonMuskrat:
> Who is driving 30 minutes to a gym? I don't even go to a gym, I get my exercise from working an allotment. I
cow:
Lots of people do, go on google street view and you will find them all over the place in many countries. Gyms are also mentioned quite frequently in the media, culture and more. Im not saying everyone is going, im just saying a lot of people are going.
ELonM: I don't even go to a gym, I get my exercise from working an allotment.
cow: I never claimed that YOU did anything. I was making a general observation about society. Dont be so self obsessed.
~
ElonM: I get my exercise from working an allotment. Incidentally, I do need a car to drive there, because it's on the other side of the city I live in, due to availability of allotments, and I don't think my landlord would be very happy about me composting food waste in the building he owns.
cow: Your sentence is broken and incomplete im not sure what your point is.
Theres something wrong if you have compost bin for your garden half way across town. This shoudl be local, like walking distance.
~
ElonM: It probably says a lot more about you, that you assume people are driving to gyms for exercise, or drinking lots of bottled water.
cow:
Are you going to tell me that gyms and bottled water dont exist ?
No wonder the earth is doing so badly lately, with fuckign morons like. you denying the most basic examples of stupidity.
Oh dear.
I was giving counter-examples of behaviour, which, in my experience, is much more common than your characterisations.
Yes, of course, people go to gyms. There's a gym opposite my house, I see people going in and out of there all day long. I also see a lot more people walking past it, and the thing is that the sort of exercise people do in gyms, which is predominantly about strengthening muscles and "bulking up" isn't the sort of aerobic exercise that is best for things like heart health, that you get from walking past a gym. And yes again, of course gyms get mentioned in media, it's almost like they're businesses trying to get people's money, or something.
As for my sentence about composting; I think you'll find that if your reading comprehension is up-to-scratch, the syntax and grammar of my paragraph was perfectly well parsable. I'll put it simply for you, as this seems to be a requirement: I live in a privately rented flat, in a city. Allotment provision is sparse, and has a long waiting list, so the available bit of land for me to use is on the other side of the city. My landlord would not be pleased if I attempted to compost food waste either inside, or outside of the building within which I live. Yes, there is something wrong, it's called capitalism, which has meant that available land for growing food within cities has been gobbled up by greedy property developers. Hence the long waiting lists and sparse availability. I feel like I'm repeating myself...
And finally, no, I'm not denying bottled water exists, but nice straw-man argument you've got there, and it's spelt fucking moron, you deeply angry and unpleasant little man. What's the matter? The spittle-flecked rage affecting your hand-eye coordination?
Elong: Incidentally, one of the biggest things a lot of industrialised countries could do to reduce carbon emissions overnight would be to mandate that employees can work from home where practicable, rather than commuting to offices
cow: Ive been saying that for a long time, search my comments.
These guys are kind of jerks most of the time, and Musk in particular is an obnoxious lunatic, but it is idiotic to try to count everything emitted by somebody's "investments" against that person's personal carbon footprint. Does that mean that nothing gets counted against the customer who buys the product or service that emits *directly*?
"idiotic to try to count everything emitted by somebody's "investments" against that person's personal carbon footprint"
Most carbon footprint estimates are nonsense, as they're invariably based upon "people like you who".
I wondered about my electricity carbon footprint until I noticed that it said something along the lines of "households like yours consume approximately 8,000kWh per year". Well, with my little car my current consumption has risen to ~145 units a month and I think that's a lot. Plus, the electricity bills say that power generation here is something like 85% nuclear, only when the Russia thing happened the prices shot up because, oh look, half the stations were shut down and the country was bringing in cheaper fossil fuel power from the Euro grid... (and they're still basing the kWh price on inflated wholesale values rather than cost-to-produce).
End result? The amount used is a fantasy (even though my meter says exactly how much) and where it comes from isn't necessarily where it says it comes from, meaning that any carbon value derived from this is equally a fantasy likely intended to guilt you into turning your heating down another degree even though they're happy to use fossil fuel power so long as it's somewhere else so counts as somebody else's carbon problem.
"Those damages include food supplies, which Oxfam estimates have led to crop losses able to provide enough food for 14.5 million people - annually between 1990 and 2023"
This is bollocks. Corn yields, for example, have never been better, in part due to fertilisation by higher levels of carbon dioxide in the air. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Also, a recent study shows that vegetation absorbs 31% more carbon than previously thought which means current climate models should be subject to defenestration. See also this article on global greening.
Perhaps it depends on the kind of vegetation.
Finland's forests have stopped absorbing carbon dioxide.
Also, even if corn yields are up, that doesn't matter if it gets wiped out due to flash floods. See yesterday's and today's floods in Valencia, Murica, and Andalucia in Spain brought about by a cut-off low due to the Mediterranean heating up at a higher rate than other seas as unlike others it's an enclosed sea.
Looking at the Finland article, the title is misleading. What the article says is that so many trees in Finland have been cut that the CO2 the forest absorbs is less than the country's emissions. In other words that Finland is not net zero anymore. It is not that the trees have stopped absorbing carbon.
The rain in Spain is extreme, but not unprecedented. On September 11, 1996 Tavernes de la Vall had 520 mm of rain and on November 3, 1987 the area around Gandia south of Valemcia even got 700 mm of rain.
Not without precedent, but now more frequent and more extreme thanks to the rise in sea temperature.
What caused deadly floods in Spain? The impact of DANA explained
The South of Spain has a lot of farming and cleared land.
I wouldnt be surprised if there are stories that say these floods are examples of humans modifying the local environment to improve farming, until one day some river breaks out and goes straight down to Valencia.
THis happened 50 odd years ago, when the main river down the center of Valencia flooded and killed a lot of people. The city then rerouted the river and turned it into a walking path/cycle way thing.
There is modified environment, but that doesn't change the fact that a storm sat motionless on top of the area and rained a year's worth of rainfall in a day due to continually taking in energy from an overheated Mediterranean sea.
True, but the data shows that the local precipitation extremes are not increasing in frequency. Even the IPCC sees zero influence of climate on mean precipitation and heavy precipitation combined with pluvial flood landslide (Table 12.12 on page 1856 of AR6) except for the most extreme emission scenario RC8.5/SSP5-8.5 which is not credible at all.
I'm not sure what I can say other than I've not heard of a DANA raining over Valencia city (where the weather station you chose is). A year ago it was closer to Madrid, this year it was in Valencia province outside the city. I tried to search for some of the weather stations shown in the first image on this page on that website but it didn't return any results so that website doesn't have data from as many weather stations as it could.
I'm not sure why predicted trends until 2050 and predicted trends between 2050-2100 would have highlighted this event.
I'd never want to be on an aircraft (or train) with somebody such as Elon, Jeff, John Kerry or Al Gore. I don't want to come under a heading of "collateral" or "incidental" something or the other. I'm not too worried. As a domestic terrorist (without portfolio), I don't fly anymore as I became tired of the groping and wanton destruction of my luggage. If these targets start taking trains, I'll be screwed as they can fill up a lot in the US and somebody booking a whole car at a time to bring their "crew" with them would just fill them up faster.
As of 2024, there were 2,781 billionaires in the world, while those with assets of $1 million or more form ~1% of the world population, according to quick web search. This article seems blurs billionaires and the 1% without blinking, and ownership of investments in oil etc., is blurred with personal consumption. It's just so damn fuzzy. This kind of loud fuzzy yelling is hard to take seriously. I seriously believe it hurts the Democrats in the election.
It's not that I don't care about climate. I've turned off the central heating some years ago and in winter instead stand on a 100W heating pad while wearing a fleece robe at my computer - would have been luxury in middle ages. +Ski pants below 50F (10C).
Imagine if had a failed hypothesis and I wanted to hide the truth or make something appear more significant than it is; I may want to turn a variable into a constant. I could for instance take something that fluctuates and cannot be properly measured such as the effective radiative forcing of co2 which is far more significant at inception and saturation than at latent levels and I could disguise it amongst other more fixed calculations and give it a highly politicised name; let's say something like "Global Warming Potential". As this new scale would always be pegged to co2 and always have the same value regardless of any advances in understanding or scientific research that demonstrates that co2 in atmosphere is far less effective that first thought I could then carry on blagging stupid people that they have to pay me lots and lots of money to prevent the sky from falling in.
Okay, so a few, slightly more intelligent people may look at the other end of the scale at something like SF6 and realise that the calculations are off by thousands but I can just call them "deniers" and use the same sort of practices that have stifled debate about religion for millennia.
Perhaps when humanity eradicates itself some other dominant species may choose to take somewhat better care of this place.
This wouldn't be a terrible outcome; whatever we do some lifeforms may likely survive. Evolution, anyone?
In the meantime, business as usual. I think we should get over ourselves.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
