In the news

Not sure about that. Seems to show wealthier people travel more.
I’d guess this is strongly linked to work and presumably there is a physical space element to the energy used equation, further amplifying this.

Not sure about that. Seems to show wealthier people travel more.

Thats my point. Do lower income people travel less becasue they are environmentally responsible or because they can't afford to or arent required to for their (lower earning) jobs?

Yep, bigger cars, houses and they probably swimming pools.....

Not sure about swimming pools for the top 10%, but your point still stands.

Just took a look at the gov.uk data. Top 10% means people earning more than £58k. Top 3% is over £100k. Top 1% is £180k+

Just took a look at what it costs to heat an outdoor pool with gas in the UK and was infuriated to realise that they get the price cap too.

It mentions lower income people in cities use least, if you need to drive for work then I imagine the energy use goes up. But what choice do you have...buses to work are too few in many places.

Not being able to heat is also very environmentally friendly, but not very human friendly!

Erm brutal indictment of consumerism

It mentions lower income people in cities use least, if you need to drive for work then I imagine the energy use goes up. But what choice do you have...buses to work are too few in many places.

Transport outside of cities is a national disgrace. And something we've fallen far behind on compared to our European neighbours.

That said, according to that data rich folk seem to drive a lot more too. Or at least use more energy driving.

Erm brutal indictment of consumerism

Can you explain your point please? I'm not following you.

I'm suggesting that there is a link between disposable income and consumption and that is why people with more money tend to consume more.

Edit: and also that we live in a consumerist society where we are encouraged to consume more every day through almost every medium we have access to.

I'm suggesting that there is a link between disposable income and consumption.

But it goes the other way to what you said. Rich people spend a lower % of their incomes. Spread it around more (i.e. fewer rich people) and you get more consumption.

I’m suggesting it’s closer related to your work and wealthier people are likely to travel globally more for work.

I understand your point, but why is relative consumption more significant than absolute consumption in this? Isnt the whole point of this to show that a small percentage of the population are causing the most harm?

I’m suggesting it’s closer related to your work and wealthier people are likely to travel globally more for work.

possibly, but I think youd have to go into greater granularity than just top 10%/ £58k+ to see that.

Ok flip it how many minimum wage workers travel internationally for work?

None. Which is part of the reason why lower income people have less of an environmental impact than higher earners, according to that data.

I still don't understand what you are getting at.

Bare in mind that there is no breakdown of the split between leisure/business flights for those people earning more than £58k.

I don’t think travelling for your work is consumeristic.

I don’t think travelling for your work is consumeristic.

I understand now. Thanks. The reason I didn't understand is becase that data doesn't split out business travel from leisure travel and I'm not clear on how likely somebody earning more than £58k is to travel internationally for work. Most of the people I know who earn less than £100k don't travel internationally for work at all. Its not that I disagree with you, just that the data isn't there to support your hypothesis. If your hypothesis is that the top 10% use so much more energy for flights becase of their jobs.

My hypothesis is further supported by all modes of transport being greater, as you go up the scale.

Surprised top 10% is 58k+

Isn't the whole point of this to show that a small percentage of the population are causing the most harm?

That's true but I don't see what it has to do with "consumerism". I was trying to read into your point on consumerism and wondered whether the intention was to make a link with the inherent income / wealth inequality of capitalistic societies.

Too be a pedant the chart is wealth not income, so the boundaries are different from those you are quoting

Top 10% wealth is just under 2m of assets including home and pension

Within all those salary bands and categories there must be huge variances.

Not all people fly (for work or otherwise) or drive everywhere, or eat meat, or buy a shit load of stuff all the time. Not all people. Just cunts.

Too be a pendant

Indeed

Hoisted by my own pendant

Have some more charts on wealth inequality
https://neweconomics.org/2022/12/8-reasons-to-share-the-wealth