Thread by @SteB777

Just some notes about my use of the top 1% of the richest people in the world, being both responsible for the climate and ecological crisis, and in obstructing attempts to address it, to maintain their lifestyles.

1/🧵threadreaderapp.com/thread/1867722…

I always get similar responses, falsely claiming that most people in the developed world, are in the global richest top 1%. Simple arithmetic proves that this is a false claim. The US population alone is 4.23% of the global population.

2/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demograph…

The population of the richest countries, in total, is much bigger than the population of the US. You can't give an exact figure, because of the problem of defining it. But it must be in excess of 10% of the global population, probably by some way.
3/

How can 10-20% of the global population, possibly be in the top 1% of the richest people in the world. However, in those countries, like the US, the UK, there is massive disparity in wealth, from the poorest to the richest. Claiming we're all in the top 1% is just plain silly.
4/

As I get tired of explaining, the top 1% is just a handy metric. Not a thing, whether someone is in it or not. It seems like you need assets of in excess of net $1 million, to be in the top 1% (there's no easy way of calculating it).

5/

https://x.com/SteB777/status/1867851238051885117

However, these constant false points about lots of people being in the top 1% globally, in rich countries, contain the same falsehood. The bottom level of wealth needed to be in the top 1%, is vastly different from the richest people, in the world, who are also in the top 1%.
6/

To explain how rich a billionaire (doesn't matter if it is in US dollars or whatever) is, I use this simple thought experiment. Not taking into account interest etc, if you were to save $1 million per year (beyond the dreams of even many relative well off people).
7/

It would take 1,000 years, to save up $1 billion in this way. And getting on for 1/2 million years to save up as much as Elon Musk has.

In other words, even in the top 1%, there is a massive disparity between those at the top of the 1%, to those at the bottom.
8/

That is why trying to claim it is most people in rich and developed countries, is just outright false argument and sophistry. Self-evidently, some in the top 1% is richer, than 99% of people. The top 1% is not a club, it is a wide-ranging demographic.
9/

Nevertheless, it is a very useful way of talking about our current predicament, when you realize the top 1% produce more emissions, than the bottom 66%. All the really high emitters, and consumers, are in this demographic.

10/theguardian.com/us-news/2023/n…

Those trying to obfuscate, are missing my point, probably quite deliberately, because they don't like the clarity of my argument.

Just about every person in charge of a large organization, is in the top 1% of the richest. The most powerful people who control everything.
11/

From government, to large media organizations, senior journalists, CEOs of corporations, even the head of NGOs. They are nearly all in the top 1%, who consume far more than 99% of humanity. Have much higher emissions. Fly far more.

12/theguardian.com/business/2020/…

This has created a clique of people, who mostly have a vested interest, in leading very extravagant lifestyles, much different to 99% of people. They also occupy nearly every major decision-making position in society, from controlling our governments, to what is in the media,
13/

I realize not everyone in the top 1% is in a major position of power, where they can personally make decisions, that affect the lives of millions, or everyone.

However, just about all people with this power, are in the top 1%.
14/

Therefore, consciously, or unconsciously, these people in this top 1% clique (and they do coordinate a lot), have a common and vested interest in preserving their affluent, extravagant lifestyles, that are driving the climate and ecological crisis.

15/theguardian.com/environment/20…

The only way we can avert climate and ecological catastrophe is by reeling in all extravagant consumption, and activities driving high emissions. Bearing in mind that the top 1% produce more emissions than the bottom 66%.
16/

So yes, those in the top 10% and just outside it, also need to make changes to their lifestyles, but far, far smaller changes, than those in the top 1%. That is why it really is a top 1% thing. Because without them making massive changes, we are facing planetary catastrophe.
17/

Here is the big thing. As I say, the top 1% tend towards cliquishness, and coordinate out of self-interest. But everyone in a major decision-making position is in their clique. So they have massive power to block any climate action, which impinges on their self-interest.
18/

Yet, as we can see, we are only ever going to be able to address the climate and ecological crisis, if we address the lifestyles of the top 1%, who also tow along demographics below them, like the top 10%.
19/

However, as we can see from the last 50 years, those in the top 1% will not agree to any changes to society, which impinge on their extravagant lifestyles. They are in every major decision-making position in our societies, in a position, to block this action.
20/

I am not, for one moment, suggesting every person in the top 1% would be unwilling to make personal sacrifices, or are evil.

I'm simply saying, most are understandably self-interested, in their decision-making.
21/

After all, you don't generally get to the top of big organizations, by being an altruist who only thinks of what is best for other people. It tends to be naked self-interest, that drives them on. So don't be surprised when their decisions, are made out of self-interest.
22/

I could go into much more detail about this. However, I think I have already illustrated, why I say the top 1% are the main drivers of the climate and ecological crisis, and why they are the biggest obstacle to addressing the crisis. Any argument to the contrary is sophistry.
23/

@threadreaderapp unroll