That’s huge. That means that if you’re in the tenth percentile of income/emissions, you might well be emitting less than the global average.

I say this because it’s true if you make the assumption of exponential decay. Their data isn’t accurate enough to check that assumption, but it’s the most parsimonious one, and in this case the function that fits would be:

 E = 29.5 e^(-P*0.36)

Where E is the emission fraction and P is the percentile as an integer. This results in the table below, with the numbers in bold the ones that the function is fit to.

Since a percentile is 1% wide, an emission fraction of 0.8% is below the global average.

This assumption doesn’t fit with the remaining 90% of the population, but it makes sense that the exponential relationship would slow down as people maintain a “poverty line” minimum footprint. If this consideration already affects the 10th percentile, it’s possible the 10th percentile still emits more than the global average.

I don’t have a car and I don’t eat meat, so it definitely doesn’t include me.

Sorry for not engaging with the content, but please add paragraph breaks. kthx

Megaprojects are too small. The Manhattan Project didn’t have its effect on the shape of war in its purview, the Apollo Program did not question the value of one-upmanship vs the USSR, the Three Gorges Dam did not concern itself with the decision making process for the industrial consumption of its electricity.

This requires thinking on the scale of planned economies, geopolitics, and ideology. We have to dismiss GDP and profit as a measure of success and find measures that indicate long term stability; to redesign the mandate and authority of the UN and IMF to liberate the global south and workers around the world from a life of miserable neocolonial overproduction; to choose a shape of laws and education and social norms that stops promoting overconsumption and focuses on the best things in life being free.

If the Catholic Church treated climate change as seriously as they treat denying people access to abortion, the media wouldn’t be using language like “helped inspire”.

Thanks for fact checking me!

Spaceflight has been responsible for 1% of global warming (radiative forcing) in 2009-2019, mainly through dumping black carbon straight into the upper atmosphere. source The number of launches have increased massively since then, and in 2025 they’re several percent.

Each space tourism flight has as much effect on global radiative forcing as 40,000 passenger jet flights. Taylor Swift’s absurd reliance on private jets is a rounding error compared to space tourists. For the median American, their lifetime effect on global warming is less than that of one second of a space tourist being in space.