Login
You're viewing the mastodonapp.uk public feed.
  • Mark Holtom (aka Kingbeard)MarkHoltom
    Aug 1, 2026, 10:57 AM

    OK. You can see that the top 10% of people produce nearly 50% of global CO2 emissions.

    So look at the emissions of the top 1%. Now, we know that Taylor Swift produces about 9,000 tons of CO2, but on average our uber rich friends produce 95 tons of CO2. Now, as they are famous celebrities, some people think they should get a pass on pollution as they fly over the current wildfires, on their way to the poodle groomer.

    Now add the emissions for the remaining top 9%. They produce an average of 20 tons CO2.

    The middle 40% (that's you and me) produce about 6 tons of CO2 (that's excluding those of us who cruise and take lots of long-haul flights).
    The bottom 50%, overwhelmingly from the global south produce less than 1 ton of CO2.

    So, tell me. What is wrong with taxing private jets and yachts VERY heavily - say $100 a litre (rather than being tax deductable, as they are now).

    They are the one's producing the pollution and they can afford to pay for the consequences.

    The graph shows what is explained in the text. The top 1% produce 50 tonnes of CO2. The next 9% produce about 12 tonnes pollution. The middle 40% produce about 6 tonnes and the bottom 50% produce about 1 tonne of CO2.
    💬 10🔄 103⭐ 106

Replies

  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 5
  • BryanBryanLastRedDrop@toot.community
    Aug 1, 2026, 3:25 PM

    @MarkHoltom sound reasoning. I might suggest hard caps to miles flown or litres consumed as a better route however. If a high price is the deterrent then billionaires will still be able to afford it (and probably enjoy it more since "common folk" can't pay ti play). But ya, I am behind a tax to start.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Jean-François Mezeijfmezei@cosocial.ca
    Aug 1, 2026, 3:32 PM

    @MarkHoltom taxing celebrity business jet makes government dependant on revenues from fossil fuels which is why governments don’t take real action on climate. The only way to act is to cap/reduce how much carbon companies are allowed to extract from deep below ground (which is the core sin). Let market deal with shortage of fuel.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Steve Holdenholdenweb@freeradical.zone
    Aug 2, 2026, 8:04 AM

    @jfmezei @MarkHoltom Always the market! The market won’t “deal with” shortage of fuel, it will simply send the fuel to the wealthy who can still afford it. The market is people, and the wealthy have far more influence over that than we do.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Dianealienghic@timeloop.cafe
    Aug 1, 2026, 3:53 PM

    @MarkHoltom

    If you're using top 10% global income earners... That's much lower at about 40k USD to be in top 10% global income and a bit over 100k to be in top 1%

    That leads me to suspect the reason the top 10% produce so much more pollution is they drive cars, and the 1% add in regular flights.

    This is still vastly lower than the super rich taking their super yachts to the antarctic to helicopter ski off of melting glaciers but all the middle class in the rich countries combined do have a significant impact.

    The majority of humanity mostly walks, supplemented with a few shared rides.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • David Hembrowhembrow@todon.eu
    Aug 1, 2026, 6:14 PM

    @alienghic indeed. To a first approximation, the top 10% is North America + EU (800 M people) and the top 1% are those with not actually that much better than average jobs and homes in those countries.

    I.e. "They" are actually us.

    The billionaires are a tiny group above us.

    Their emissions need restricting, and so do ours.
    @MarkHoltom

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Martin Schlüter 🌻maddin@gruene.social
    Aug 1, 2026, 6:34 PM

    @MarkHoltom
    The chart on the right side is heavily misleading.

    The chart "Share of global emissions" on the left shows which groups need to change their life-style, which are "Middle 40%" and "Next 9%". They are emitting about 75% of all emissions now.

    If you could drop that to 30-40% that would be much more effektive than tackling the "Top 1%".

    Unfortunately "Middle 40%" and "Next 9%" also represent the majority of voters :-/

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 0px autokattebel@hachyderm.io
    Aug 1, 2026, 9:03 PM

    @MarkHoltom a 50% reduction seems trivial if you were to have the top 50% emit as little as the bottom 50%

    For the middle 40% a lot of that could be achieved simply by going plant-based.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • visikdevisikde@mstdn.plus
    Aug 1, 2026, 9:35 PM

    @MarkHoltom
    How about a distance tax on everything?
    We are not paying the full price for fossil fuels.
    We should encourage local & regional everything.
    A big chunk of the windfall tax revenue devoted to mitigating existing damage

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • MostlyTatoMostlyTato@mstdn.social
    Aug 29, 2026, 8:21 PM

    @MarkHoltom
    Taxing the rich is not about punitively targeting them. Its not even about making them pay what they owe back into the countries they made their profits from.
    The ultra rich use that wealth to consume, and that means huge hydrocarbon use and massive pollution to add to the climate apocalypse.
    They are the main cause of it, make them pay to mitigate its impact on all of us.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0