True. But if the largest economy in the world wasn't actively trying to sabotage green solutions and promote oil use and environmental destruction as a result of billionaires' influence, it would be a big plus.

The global 10% income threshold is about $70k.

Just so we are clear the global population is about 8.3billion. So there are about 830million in the top 10%. The US has a population of 340million, the EU of 450million and there are some other countries like the UK or Canada. Then there are some rich countries like South Korea, Japan, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and so forth, which also have large populations. Also obviously there are plenty of rich people in poor countries as well. Especially China will make up a good chunk of the global top 10%, just for being upper middle income and a country with a huge population.

In other words it is not being above median income in the West, but somewhat above that.

No. Instead of just saying things, you could look up the study and see:

• percentage are broken out globally and by nation
• in Fig.2 that the top 0.1% has attributable GMT increase roughly equal to all others combined
• many other things that question your final assertion, which doesn't even logically flow from what you did say

It's weird to see someone here homering for billionaires and getting lots of upvotes. It doesn't take an advanced degree to recognize that commuting via private jet and owning a yacht to carry your smaller yacht is disproportionately bad for the environment. The really crazy part is that your last two sentences are accurate (though possibly a bit misleading) sans the last word, "unchanged", which makes them total bullshit.

True and I was going to post something similar. One thing to keep in mind though is that the abolition of billionaires or more broadly speaking the capitalist class would enable the possibility of a totally different economy where profits are no longer the only goal. This could result in a more efficient way of doing things and therefore drastically reduce our negative impact on nature.

One thing to keep in mind here is that "the wealthiest 10%" includes everyone in the western world who makes even a dollar above the median income.

I don't think that's accurate. Combining the total populations of the US, EU, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand gives you about 923 million people, which is about 11.12% of the world population.

And unless you mean to suggest that 89.92% of the people in those countries make above the median income, which is mathematically impossible, then your statement cannot be true.

Not to mention, this calculation neglects the fact that billionaires and hundred-millionaires exist outside of western countries, assuming all higher-than-median earners in the world are westerners. Which is false.

And, income is a bad indicator for this because the wealthiest 10% is calculated by assets, not income. Most of them don't have any "income" because they make all their money via capital gains.

So no, you're completely losing sight of the problem. Median-income-earners don't constantly fly around in private jets and own datacenters that they power with jet fuel. They don't own coal plants or oil refineries. Their carbon footprint is miniscule compared to the 10% discussed in this post.

If there is no need for profit there will be no need for infinite growth on a finite planet.

No need to push people new phones every year so their old one goes into the trash, etc etc

This is a core component of the class war.

For all of history the ruling class have granted a minority of the proles a privileged life, who will play ball and defend their privileged position from the majority (uncle toms, lords, landowners, managers, lobbyists, politicians, even most CEO's).

Most of the richest 10-1% in the developing world earned their wealth through labor, and simply bought property or invested in retirement funds at the right time. They are still pawns, and not the ruling class decision makers — mostly born into so much wealth that they never had to work a day in their lives — who control corporations, political parties, military and geopolitical actions. They are the ones who own the media and propaganda machines, finance the class and culture wars, corrupt our political and democratic institutions, and have prevented our transition away from fossil fuels for 50+ years. Hell most of the 1-0.1% are not decision makers; probably successful doctors, lawyers, scientists, engineers, entertainers, etc.

This should have been the headline.

Guys, if you’re in “developed” countries and you’re at least 1.5x above the poverty line, you’re included in the global 10%

17% of the global population lives in developed countries and there are plenty of rich people in developing countries too.

"In the United States (EU27), the top 10% contribute 3.1 (2.8) times more to global warming than the average citizen, but 17 (8) times more than the global average"

Top 10% is a salary about $155,000 for an individual or $210,000 for US household. Obviously industrialized countries like China, US, India, Russia, etc admit much higher than the global average.

Please state your approx. income and country so we judge you now.

800 million people in that 10% but "yep it's all the Americans faults!" lmao

Unless it is a rich Zimbabwean. Then it's probably them. It's about purchasing power and ability to buy air fare and cars etc.

It's very easy to point at and blame others. We can all contribute to solving the problem.

If you can cycle rather than drive to work, the planet thanks you whether you're in Michigan or Nairobi.

https://wir2026.wid.world/insight/global-economic-inequity/ (Figure 1.4)

To belong to the top 10%, an individual must earn about $65,500 per year (around $5,460 per month). To reach the top 1%, the threshold rises to about $250,300 annually ($21,860 per month). Unsurprisingly, most of the population earning at these levels is concentrated in Europe, North America, and Oceania.