Most of our dysfunctions are caused by pandering to the rich. The way governments have allowed democracy to be eroded by lobbyists (including politicians with lucrative private interests); the deregulation that lets corporations, oligarchs and landlords squeeze their workers and tenants, then dump their costs on society; the permissive environment for profiteering during the COVID-19 pandemic; and the degradation of health, education and other public services by the constant drive toward privatization are all these symptoms of the same condition.
The same applies to the worst of our predicaments: the destruction of our life-support systems. The very rich arrogate to themselves the lion’s share of the planetary space on which we all depend.
It is hard to understand why we tolerate this attack on our common interests.
The richest 1 percent of the world’s people — those earning more than US$172,000 a year — produce 15 percent of the world’s carbon emissions: twice the combined impact of the poorest 50 percent. On average, they emit more than 70 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person every year, 30 times more than we can each afford to release if we are not to exceed 1.5°C of global heating.
While the emissions of the world’s middle classes are expected to fall sharply over the next decade, thanks to the general decarbonization of our economies, the amount produced by the richest will scarcely decline at all. In other words, they will be responsible for an even greater share of total carbon dioxide.
Becoming good global citizens would mean cutting their carbon consumption by an average of 97 percent.
Even if 90 percent of the population produced no carbon at all, the anticipated emissions of the richest 10 percent — those earning more than US$55,000 per year — across the next nine years would use almost the entire global budget.
The disparity in environmental impact mirrors a nation’s inequality. No wonder the prosperous people of the wealthy nations are so keen to seek to shift the blame to China, or on to other people’s birthrates. Sometimes it seems that they will try anything before attending to their own impacts.
A recent analysis of the lifestyles of 20 billionaires found that each produced an average of more than 8,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide, 3,500 times their fair share in a world committed to no more than 1.5°C of heating.
The major causes are their jets and yachts. A superyacht alone, kept on permanent standby, as some billionaires’ boats are, generates about 7,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year.
Microsoft Corp cofounder Bill Gates, who has positioned himself as a climate champion, does not possess a yacht. Even so, he has an estimated footprint 3,000 times bigger than the good global citizen’s, largely as a result of his collection of jets and helicopters.
He claims to “buy green aviation fuel,” but there is no such thing.
Biofuels for jets, if widely deployed, would trigger an environmental catastrophe, as so much plant material is required to power a single flight. This means that crops or plantations must displace either food production or wild ecosystems. No other “green” aviation fuels are currently available.
Gates seeks to resolve such conflicts by buying carbon offsets, but all available opportunities to draw down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere are now required to reduce the impact of humanity as a whole. Why should they be captured by those who want to keep living like emperors?
We are often told by frequent flyers that we should overlook the climate impacts of aviation, as they amount to “just a few percent.”
However, the only reason they remain relatively low is that flying is highly concentrated. Flying accounts for most of the greenhouse gas emissions of the super-rich, which is why the wealthiest 1 percent generate roughly half of the world’s aviation emissions.
If everyone lived as they do, aviation would be the biggest of all the causes of climate breakdown.
Their carbon greed knows no limits. Some of the super-rich now hope to travel into space, which means that they would each produce as much carbon dioxide in 10 minutes as 30 average humans emit in a year.
The very rich claim to be wealth creators, but in ecological terms, they do not create wealth. They take it from everyone else.
Big money now buys everything, even access to the meetings that should address these dysfunctions. On some accounts, COP26 is the most exclusive of all climate summits. Delegates from poor nations have been thwarted by a cruel combination of Byzantine visa requirements, broken promises to make COVID-19 vaccines available, and the mad costs of accommodation, thanks to government failures to cap local prices or make rooms available.
Even when delegates from poorer nations can scale these walls, they often find themselves excluded from the negotiating areas and therefore unable to influence the talks.
By contrast, more than 500 fossil fuel lobbyists have been granted access, more than the combined delegations of eight places that have already been ravaged by climate breakdown: the Bahamas, Bangladesh, Haiti, Myanmar, Mozambique, Pakistan, the Philippines and Puerto Rico.
The perpetrators are heard, while the victims are excluded.
There is an oft-quoted axiom, whose authorship is obscure: It is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. Part of the reason is that capitalism itself is difficult to imagine. Most people struggle to define it, and its champions have generally succeeded in disguising its true nature. So let us begin by imagining something that is easier to comprehend: the end of concentrated wealth.
Our survival depends on it.
I have come to believe that the most important of all environmental measures are wealth taxes. Preventing systemic environmental collapse means driving extreme wealth to extinction. It is not humanity as a whole that the planet cannot afford.
It is the ultra-rich.
George Monbiot is a Guardian columnist.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under