World News

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] Saizaku@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I mean if you had bothered to open the article, it's in the 2nd paragraph:

The most comprehensive study of global climate inequality ever undertaken shows that this elite group, made up of 77 million people including billionaires, millionaires and those paid more than US$140,000 (£112,500) a year

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] agarorn@feddit.de 3 points 2 years ago

Why do these articles always mix up wealth and income?

You needed 800k$ in 2018 to be part of the 1% wealthiest.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/01/how-much-money-you-need-to-be-part-of-the-1-percent-worldwide.html

parent

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

I did, that continues as:

more than US$140,000 (£112,500) a year, accounted for 16% of all CO2 emissions in 2019 – enough to cause more than a million excess deaths due to heat, according to the report.

Which is not the same as the headline.

parent

[–] zerfuffle@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 years ago

Top 1% does 16%, bottom 66% does 16%, middle 33% does 68%.

On a per-capita basis, the top 1% is 8x worse than the middle 33% and 66x worse than the bottom 66%.

parent

[–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Not having kids affects how rich you are ?

parent

[–] AceFuzzLord@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Less kids means less money spent and more money saved in the long run, so yeah.

parent

[–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

So kids have négative value?

parent

[–] AceFuzzLord@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago

Depending on who you ask, yes.

parent

[–] Sagifurius@lemm.ee -2 points 2 years ago*

absolutely irrelevant and disingenuous using local income on a global scale. Dude making 130, 000 in Vancouver these days is a broke motherfucker (before tax)