Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Environment

Environment Environmental Politics Forum - Environmental issues, global warming, pollution, and proposals


Thanks Tree7Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 10th, 2017, 10:19 PM   #1
forgot my old user name
 
right to left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,439
Money to burn: As the wealthy get wealthier, carbon emissions grow in US states

Here's another unexpected problem with allowing increased wealth inequality and a fortunate few to become billionaires: they're a destructive force increasing global warming also!

https://phys.org/news/2017-04-money-...emissions.html

Across the U.S., state-level carbon emissions are higher in states where income is more highly concentrated among the wealthiest residents, according to a new study by two Boston College researchers.

On a global level, the connection between national wealth and carbon emissions has been well documented. The study, by sociologists Andrew Jorgenson and Juliet Schor, is the first to link income inequality and carbon emissions within and across the individual U.S. states.

The study found that state-level carbon emissions between 1997 and 2012 were positively associated with the income share of the top 10 percent of a state's population, according to the findings, published online and in the April edition of the journal Ecological Economics.

Using the 2012 state data for carbon emissions, and based on the statistical analysis reported in the research article, a one percent increase in the income share of the top 10 percent of a state's population results in tons of additional carbon emissions, led by:

1. Texas - 812,325 to 934,174 metric tons
2. California - 437,035 to 502,590 metric tons
3. Pennsylvania - 284,980 to 327,728 metric tons
4. Florida - 269,030 to 309,395 metric tons
5. Illinois - 261,170 to 300,966 metric tons
6. Ohio - 260,622 to 299,716 metric tons
7. Louisiana - 246,618 to 283,611 metric tons
8. Indiana - 232,886 to 237,819 metric tons
9. New York - 196,234 to 225,670 metric tons
10. Michigan - 184,835 to 212,560 metric tons

South Carolina was the median in the analysis, with income share growth adding 89,175 to 102,551 metric tons of carbon emissions in 2012. The District of Columbia saw the lowest growth in carbon emissions at an increase of 3,251 to 3,738 metric tons for each 1 percent increase in wealth............................................ ...................

Spending power drives carbon-intensive consumerism. But so do the political clout and economic power of the wealthiest individuals, according to Jorgenson and Schor, whose analysis with co-author and BC graduate student Xiaorui Huang employed established economic models that assess the political and economic influence of individual wealth on society.

"First, income concentration leads to concentrated political power and the ability to prevent regulations on carbon emissions," said Schor, a professor of sociology. "Second, high income consumers are disproportionate carbon polluters."

The researchers tested the influence of a well-established statistical measure of income inequality, known as the Gini coefficient. That analytical tool reports inequality in a general sense, but doesn't show where inequality exists, said Jorgenson. So the researchers turned to a measure that captures the top 10 percent of a state's population.

"What we find here in the context of income inequality and carbon emissions is that it's about the concentration of income at the top of the distribution," said Jorgenson. "In our statistical models, where the Gini coefficient is non-significant, across the board the wealth of the top 10 percent is. That tells us that it really is about income concentration at the top end of the distribution."

In addition to income, the analysis weighed additional factors - some already well-established as contributors to carbon emissions - such as population size, per capita gross domestic product, urbanization, manufacturing as a percentage of state GDP, fossil fuels production, and the level of state's commitments to environmental regulation.

The researchers drew from a broad array of sources, including statistics from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Census Bureau, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the League of Conservation Voters, and databases including the U.S. State-Level Income Inequality Database at Sam Houston State University and the internationally supported World Wealth and Income Database.

In addition to advancing the understanding of the factors that force changes in the climate, Jorgenson said the findings contribute to a more expansive view of the harmful effects of income inequality, which has been shown to foster poor outcomes in measures such as health and well being.

"Equalizing incomes has all kinds of potential benefits," Jorgenson said. "This suggests a holistic view of sustainability, equalizing income distribution within the U.S. can have social and environmental benefits. And they can have a global benefit too, since the U.S. is such a significant contributor to climate change."
Thanks from Twisted Sister
right to left is offline  
Old April 10th, 2017, 10:28 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Twisted Sister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Brown Township, Ohio
Posts: 10,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by right to left View Post
Here's another unexpected problem with allowing increased wealth inequality and a fortunate few to become billionaires: they're a destructive force increasing global warming also!

https://phys.org/news/2017-04-money-...emissions.html

Across the U.S., state-level carbon emissions are higher in states where income is more highly concentrated among the wealthiest residents, according to a new study by two Boston College researchers.

On a global level, the connection between national wealth and carbon emissions has been well documented. The study, by sociologists Andrew Jorgenson and Juliet Schor, is the first to link income inequality and carbon emissions within and across the individual U.S. states.

The study found that state-level carbon emissions between 1997 and 2012 were positively associated with the income share of the top 10 percent of a state's population, according to the findings, published online and in the April edition of the journal Ecological Economics.

Using the 2012 state data for carbon emissions, and based on the statistical analysis reported in the research article, a one percent increase in the income share of the top 10 percent of a state's population results in tons of additional carbon emissions, led by:

1. Texas - 812,325 to 934,174 metric tons
2. California - 437,035 to 502,590 metric tons
3. Pennsylvania - 284,980 to 327,728 metric tons
4. Florida - 269,030 to 309,395 metric tons
5. Illinois - 261,170 to 300,966 metric tons
6. Ohio - 260,622 to 299,716 metric tons
7. Louisiana - 246,618 to 283,611 metric tons
8. Indiana - 232,886 to 237,819 metric tons
9. New York - 196,234 to 225,670 metric tons
10. Michigan - 184,835 to 212,560 metric tons

South Carolina was the median in the analysis, with income share growth adding 89,175 to 102,551 metric tons of carbon emissions in 2012. The District of Columbia saw the lowest growth in carbon emissions at an increase of 3,251 to 3,738 metric tons for each 1 percent increase in wealth............................................ ...................

Spending power drives carbon-intensive consumerism. But so do the political clout and economic power of the wealthiest individuals, according to Jorgenson and Schor, whose analysis with co-author and BC graduate student Xiaorui Huang employed established economic models that assess the political and economic influence of individual wealth on society.

"First, income concentration leads to concentrated political power and the ability to prevent regulations on carbon emissions," said Schor, a professor of sociology. "Second, high income consumers are disproportionate carbon polluters."

The researchers tested the influence of a well-established statistical measure of income inequality, known as the Gini coefficient. That analytical tool reports inequality in a general sense, but doesn't show where inequality exists, said Jorgenson. So the researchers turned to a measure that captures the top 10 percent of a state's population.

"What we find here in the context of income inequality and carbon emissions is that it's about the concentration of income at the top of the distribution," said Jorgenson. "In our statistical models, where the Gini coefficient is non-significant, across the board the wealth of the top 10 percent is. That tells us that it really is about income concentration at the top end of the distribution."

In addition to income, the analysis weighed additional factors - some already well-established as contributors to carbon emissions - such as population size, per capita gross domestic product, urbanization, manufacturing as a percentage of state GDP, fossil fuels production, and the level of state's commitments to environmental regulation.

The researchers drew from a broad array of sources, including statistics from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Census Bureau, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the League of Conservation Voters, and databases including the U.S. State-Level Income Inequality Database at Sam Houston State University and the internationally supported World Wealth and Income Database.

In addition to advancing the understanding of the factors that force changes in the climate, Jorgenson said the findings contribute to a more expansive view of the harmful effects of income inequality, which has been shown to foster poor outcomes in measures such as health and well being.

"Equalizing incomes has all kinds of potential benefits," Jorgenson said. "This suggests a holistic view of sustainability, equalizing income distribution within the U.S. can have social and environmental benefits. And they can have a global benefit too, since the U.S. is such a significant contributor to climate change."
Tell Robert Redford to stop flying his personal passenger jet around from here to there and extolling the poor and downtrodden to save energy.
Twisted Sister is offline  
Old April 10th, 2017, 10:38 PM   #3
Celebrating diversity
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,938
Thanks from coke and Twisted Sister
Sabcat is offline  
Old April 10th, 2017, 10:58 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Twisted Sister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Brown Township, Ohio
Posts: 10,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
I took my almost new pickup truck to get the oil changed only a couple days ago. I knew he was a cop because he did not give me a speeding ticket when traveling at 55 in a 35 speed zone, probably moonlighting. At the oil change store he said give my your ID and I did. I said I want Mobile 1 and he said that is $110, I said this is a luxury truck and want the best. After that was over he gave me a free bottle of water and a candy cane and I said thanks. Then I met his honking and angry pet Canadian Goose.
Twisted Sister is offline  
Old April 10th, 2017, 11:13 PM   #5
Celebrating diversity
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Sister View Post
I took my almost new pickup truck to get the oil changed only a couple days ago. I knew he was a cop because he did not give me a speeding ticket when traveling at 55 in a 35 speed zone, probably moonlighting. At the oil change store he said give my your ID and I did. I said I want Mobile 1 and he said that is $110, I said this is a luxury truck and want the best. After that was over he gave me a free bottle of water and a candy cane and I said thanks. Then I met his honking and angry pet Canadian Goose.
That is really high for an oil change but I guess I just paid like $200 to have my tires changed. I looked in through the window and they had my hood open and I was like "what does opening my hood have to do w/ changing tires?" Habit they said. Bullshit. I only use that shop cuz I bought an oil change package from them. Something always seems a bit off to me there. They had some lady thinking that she had to come in for "BMW oil" or some shit. Her oil light came on and she rushed right in there I had to explain to her how to check her oil and that she doent have to go there for special oil.

Funny.
Sabcat is offline  
Old April 11th, 2017, 06:29 AM   #6
Banned
 
coke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: nunya
Posts: 12,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Sister View Post
I took my almost new pickup truck to get the oil changed only a couple days ago. I knew he was a cop because he did not give me a speeding ticket when traveling at 55 in a 35 speed zone, probably moonlighting. At the oil change store he said give my your ID and I did. I said I want Mobile 1 and he said that is $110, I said this is a luxury truck and want the best. After that was over he gave me a free bottle of water and a candy cane and I said thanks. Then I met his honking and angry pet Canadian Goose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
That is really high for an oil change but I guess I just paid like $200 to have my tires changed. I looked in through the window and they had my hood open and I was like "what does opening my hood have to do w/ changing tires?" Habit they said. Bullshit. I only use that shop cuz I bought an oil change package from them. Something always seems a bit off to me there. They had some lady thinking that she had to come in for "BMW oil" or some shit. Her oil light came on and she rushed right in there I had to explain to her how to check her oil and that she doent have to go there for special oil.

Funny.
my 2015 Silverado has the GM Dextros synthetic oil in it. They give you 4 free oil changes or 2 years free, which ever comes first. They run about a 100 bucks that includes a tire rotation. I just scheduled one and the chevy garage was running a special. 56 bucks for the oil change and tire rotation. I am getting over 8k between changes. But, the kicker is if you do not use that oil and you do not have documentation of your oil changes, then you can void your warranty.
coke is offline  
Old April 11th, 2017, 07:02 AM   #7
Celebrating diversity
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by coke View Post
my 2015 Silverado has the GM Dextros synthetic oil in it. They give you 4 free oil changes or 2 years free, which ever comes first. They run about a 100 bucks that includes a tire rotation. I just scheduled one and the chevy garage was running a special. 56 bucks for the oil change and tire rotation. I am getting over 8k between changes. But, the kicker is if you do not use that oil and you do not have documentation of your oil changes, then you can void your warranty.
Synthetic oil is far superior
Sabcat is offline  
Old April 11th, 2017, 07:10 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 18,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
That's particularly and especially retarded.
Thanks from RNG
Hollywood is offline  
Old April 11th, 2017, 07:11 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 18,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Sister View Post
I took my almost new pickup truck to get the oil changed only a couple days ago. I knew he was a cop because he did not give me a speeding ticket when traveling at 55 in a 35 speed zone, probably moonlighting. At the oil change store he said give my your ID and I did. I said I want Mobile 1 and he said that is $110, I said this is a luxury truck and want the best. After that was over he gave me a free bottle of water and a candy cane and I said thanks. Then I met his honking and angry pet Canadian Goose.
WTF was that all about???
Hollywood is offline  
Old April 11th, 2017, 07:36 AM   #10
forgot my old user name
 
right to left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
That is really high for an oil change but I guess I just paid like $200 to have my tires changed. I looked in through the window and they had my hood open and I was like "what does opening my hood have to do w/ changing tires?" Habit they said. Bullshit. I only use that shop cuz I bought an oil change package from them. Something always seems a bit off to me there. They had some lady thinking that she had to come in for "BMW oil" or some shit. Her oil light came on and she rushed right in there I had to explain to her how to check her oil and that she doent have to go there for special oil.

Funny.
I got rid of my car! I don't need it for work; I can run, walk, or use my bike even for grocery shopping. I rent a car once or twice a month at most, if I actually need one.

It never ceases to amaze me when I see neighbours driving to our local corner variety store about 3 or 4 blocks away! After decades of saturation bombing of advertising, lifestyle ads, and indirect advertising through product placement influence on TV and movie production, I'm noticing the under 30 crowd don't have the same stupid attitude about cars that us boomers have had...treating it like an essential..whether we need it or not!

And if it is a necessity where you live, that means it's time to get active locally and lobby for bike lanes, pedestrian-friendly streets in the downtown areas, and phase out car culture..which is going to go back to the way it was long ago anyway..when my father was young, and a car was a luxury that was so unusual, that kids looked every time they saw some rich people driving by in one!
Thanks from Hollywood
right to left is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Environment

Tags
burn, carbon, emissions, grow, money, states, wealthier, wealthy



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SCOTUS Blocks Obama Carbon Emissions Plan excalibur Current Events 6 February 9th, 2016 06:44 PM
House Tea Partiers to the World: Burn, Baby, Burn. LongWinded Current Events 3 October 10th, 2015 04:28 PM
As Carbon Emissions Continue to Increase, So Will Extreme Downpours LongWinded Environment 0 June 4th, 2015 10:30 AM
FACT SHEET: United States Support for Global Efforts to Combat Carbon Pollution and B The White House The White House 0 November 15th, 2014 08:00 AM
Obama Quiet As Union Protests Grow In Swing States npr Current Events 0 February 23rd, 2011 08:01 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.