That’s not as true as it used to be…
Co-author Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, said: “If everyone had emitted like the bottom 50% of the global population, the world would have seen minimal additional warming since 1990.” On the other hand, if the whole world population had emitted as the top 10%, 1% or 0.1% had, the temperature increase would have been 2.9C, 6.7C or a completely unsurvivable 12.2C.
And that shows that even the top 10% isn’t a problem.
It’s not like any group is perfect, the poorest in India and China still use very inefficient coal stoves/heaters, some even use dung. That has an oversized effect on glacier melt due to particulate deposit which goes on to exacerbate climate change.
It makes zero sense to try and start with normal first world citizens while ignoring it still literally doesn’t matter because the wealthiest are doing so much.
Like, putting it the average first world citizen to make them feel like that could fix it is literally fossil fuel propaganda…
Did you know that when you repeated it?
Not just with emissions but plastic recycling too:
Best case scenario here. You’ve fallen head over heels for corporate propaganda…
That it’s less than half of the 1% and less that a fourth of the 0.1%…
What I didn’t go I to was a lot of what’s counting against the top 50% is global shipping, which these days they have no control over.
People in the first world buying cheap plastic junk made in the third world aren’t doing it because it’s cheaper, these days it’s still expensive and often the only available option.
Like, why are people having difficulty in 2025 understanding that this shit is just so the 99% fight each other instead of uniting against the people who are actually the problem?