So, the suggestion is:
So let’s begin by imagining something that’s easier to comprehend: the end of concentrated wealth. Our survival depends on it.
I’ve 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’s the ultra-rich.
Logically this doesn’t work. OK, sure, so richer people emit more CO2. So, we equalise incomes – then everyone who gains income gets to emit a little more, as the billionaires emit much less. Net change in emissions is going to be?
But there’s that usual fun bit in there. “The rich” who will get gralloched are those folk over there, behind the curtain. Never the you and me that are being talked to.
The richest 1% of the world’s people (those earning more than $172,000 a year) produce 15% of the world’s carbon emissions: twice the combined impact of the poorest 50%.
No, the top 1% by global income are more like $50k and up.
Even if 90% of the population produced no carbon at all, the anticipated emissions of the richest 10% (those earning over $55,000)
No, that’s more like $20k, the top 10%.
He’s referring to this Oxfam paper. Which has the unfortunate habit of veering back and forth between the global 1% – roughly, anyone above middle class in the rich world, the global 10% being pretty much anyone at all in the rich world – and the top 1% and 10% in each nation.
He think’s he’s detailing those plutocrats behind the curtain who get gralloched. When in fact it’s near all of his readership who do under his plan. That’s a harder sell.