As a (near) 70 year old, I too enjoyed your thought provoking book. I have children and grandchildren, and their future welfare is at the forefront of my mind in looking to do something about climate change. I also agree that individual actions are just as important as actions taken by governments and corporations. We are all in this together! So I believe nearly everyone can do something - from lightbulbs to insulation to heat pumps and solar panels. Even adjusting settings on a gas boiler can reduce gas consumption, cost nothing and save money!
Many thanks for your well informed and data driven blog.
What might be helpful to remember — for people of all ages — is that climate change isn’t entirely new or unprecedented. It’s another example of a pattern we’ve seen before:
• Science or technology brings progress — but also unintended harm
• Scientists detect the damage
• Powerful interests deny or delay
• Eventually, the truth prevails and society acts
We’ve seen it with lead in gasoline, tobacco, CFCs and the ozone layer, DDT and more. In each case, science helped solve a problem it helped create — despite denial and delay.
One encouraging constant? Younger generations tend to internalize scientific realities more quickly. They’ve often been the first to push for action, and their instincts have usually been right. The real question now is whether we let delay win again, or finally break the pattern.
I may be the exception, 78 years old, but I'm scared shitless about Climate Change and the effect is will have on my Children and Grandchildren. I am a Biologist/Ecologist by education. a UConn Master Gardener, and have been aware of the effects for over 30 years. I live in a Climate Zone 6, Northern Connecticut, and when I moved here 50 years ago it was Zone 5, and I haven't moved. I have plants supposedly only Hardy to Zone 7 that have been Thriving in my Gardens for a decade. It's as real as it can be.
I'm in my eighth decade, and I first heard about anthropogenic global warming in 1988, when James Hansen testified to Congress. I was working as a support contractor at Goddard Space Flight Center, and witnessed a large majority of NASA earth scientists quickly forming a consensus that AGW was real and troubling. Having trained in Natural Sciences to the doctoral level before finding an easier way to make a living, I had no difficulty reaching the same conclusions; it's basic physics, after all, recognized by science for more than a century. I was soon dismayed, however, by the denialism actively propagated in the American public sphere, for the private benefit of fossil carbon producers and investors.
Dr. Ritchie has heard this all before, but for hypothetical uncommitted lurkers, my training included some Economics, which led me to view AGW as a "Tragedy of the Commons": a result of the global "free" market's ancient propensity to socialize every transaction cost it can get away with. Since neither producers or consumers historically accounted for the marginal climate-change cost of fossil carbon in the market price, the aggregate cost is now being paid for by involuntary third parties, most heavily by those with the least lifetime emissions. Garrett Hardin, who coined "TotC" in 1968, suggested that only collective intervention ("mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon") could mitigate common-pool resource tragedies like AGW. That's because too few individuals will make private sacrifices for the common good, unless everyone else does also (the "Free Rider" problem)!
Any private sacrifice that's more than virtue-signalling, is arguably virtuous. Yet unless we're wholly "off the grid", every good or service Americans buy is produced with some fossil carbon, usually the cheapest energy available because its price doesn't include the marginal climate impact. National policy is required, to drive the otherwise-free market to replace fossil fuels with carbon-neutral energy throughout the US economy. Intervention can be in the form of direct carbon pricing, e.g. a carbon fee/tax; incentives for carbon-neutral energy development, e.g. the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022; or more draconian measures, e.g. emissions caps on businesses. Disclaimer: my preference is for a national carbon fee and dividend with border adjustment tariff (https://citizensclimatelobby.org/price-on-carbon). Without some kind of decarbonization policy, however, the cumulative cost of AGW is open-ended!
Of course, collective intervention inevitably involves politics. Any effective public policy will take profit away from carbon capitalists, who can be expected to invest heavily in thwarting it. I leave it to SBN readers to come to their own conclusions, and vote accordingly.
As an older 66 year old, I did enjoy your book and often use your site for research and talks. We are working hard to get to Net 0. At the moment we are over 80% there. We have both passive solar and solar PV to power our home AND vehicles. https://www.amazon.com/Driving-Net-Stories-Carbon-Future/dp/0692143831
Thanks for this discussion. Very thought-provoking. Especially fascinated by the age gap between belief in individual action vs systemic change. Was there are “both” category?
Contentious subject ? Yes......and ignorance and "feelings" and emotion abound !
FACT : Science , reason , logic and common-sense are seldom employed by "climate scientists" !
There just isn't enough glory or books and money in it otherwise !
Climate is ALWAYS CHANGING , so , depending on how you "frame the questions" you will get exactly the answer you want ! And yes , humans ARE predictable , malleable , able to manipulated and led like sheep !The "Main Stream Media" [ MSM] do it everyday !
"David Bellamy had several qualifications and achievements. He held an honors degree in botany and a PhD in botany from Chelsea College of Science and Technology (now part of King's College London) and Bedford College, respectively. He was also an Honorary Fellow of Royal Holloway, University of London for his contributions to botany and environmental communication. Additionally, he was a well-known broadcaster and conservationist, hosting several TV shows and serving as president of various environmental organizations." He literally started Conservation:
Bellamy was a prominent figure in conservation, serving as president of organizations like The Conservation Foundation and various Wildlife Trusts. He was awarded an OBE.
He spent his 50th birthday in prison in Tasmania after blockading the Franklin River in protest against a proposed dam. "And in 1996 he let rip against wind farms (‘because they don’t work’) "
"Until, we touch on climate change and the vicious backlash he suffered when, in 2004, and in the face of scientific convention and public opinion, he dismissed man-made global warming as ‘poppycock! ...’‘From that moment, I really wasn’t welcome at the BBC. They froze me out, because I don’t believe in global warming. My career dried up. I was thrown out of my own conservation groups and I got spat at in London.""Bellamy also set up endless charities and campaigning groups (he was patron of more than 400 at one time — ‘I helped to start conservation’)
The killer blow came when he was dropped by The Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts, of which he was president. ‘I worked with the Wildlife Trusts for 52 years. And when they dropped me, they didn’t even tell me...They didn’t have the guts. I read about it in the newspapers. Can you believe it? Now they don’t want to be anywhere near me. But what are they doing? The WWF might have saved a few pandas, but what about the forests? What have Greenpeace done?
VERSUS :
"Sir David Attenborough's primary qualifications stem from his extensive work as a broadcaster, writer, and naturalist, particularly in the field of natural history and educational television programming. He is widely recognized for his popular and influential television series, most notably the "Life" series. While not formally a scientist, his work has significantly contributed to public understanding of science and the natural world" UNTIL LATTERLY when he has become a full-blown
Catastrophic-Climate-Change-Activist !......"falsely presenting videos" that are not factual at all .....lies actually..supporting "global warming" in theory........and he has been awarded a Knighthood !
.
As Ned Kelly is supposed to have uttered just before he was hanged : "SUCH IS LIFE !"
.
Once you sort the wheat from the chaff by ASKING THE QUESTIONS directly and removing the "FRAME" you arrive at a totally different conclusion Hannah.
e.g. "Do you believe in Climate Change ?" Answer : "Yes......because it's always changing !"
e.g. "Do you believe that MANKIND is causing Climate Change ?" Answer : " Perhaps ! "
e.g. "How is MANKIND causing Climate Change ?" Answer : " I don't know , but it's possible that mankind is contributing , but since the changes are so small , it's impossible to be certain "
e.g. " Is Climate-Change responsible for all the Terrible Natural Disasters that we are seeing now ?"
ANSWER: " No , the floods , droughts , fires and tsunamis are all something that happens every so often ! Even though there are far more people now , there are far fewer people killed or injured now than there were in the past because we have better adaption and better warning systems "
e.g. "Catastrophic-Climate-Change will raise sea-levels and flood many coastal areas and cities !"
ANSWER : "Possibly , but we will build dykes and sea-walls or move to higher ground . Most of the Netherlands is below sea-level now . Perhaps we can adapt like the Dutch people have done"
e.g. "What do you fear most about Climate-Change ?" ANSWER: " Nothing. It is happening very slowly , if at all , and the warming may , or may not , be due to any extra CO2 , and so far it has been entirely beneficial . The extra warmth and the extra CO2 is "greening the planet" .
e.g. "What about the wildlife that can't move or adapt ?" ANSWER: "It will move or adapt or it will die out........like 99.99% of every other life-form that has ever existed on the planet ! "
e.g. "What do you propose to do to stop Catastrophic-Climate-change !" ANSWER : " Well , for starters , STOP using that doom and gloom terminology. So far there has been NO CATASTROPHE
only threats from "ignorant climate activists" many of whom struggle to read and write due to our rotten , indoctrinating-and school-curricula ! They are unable to think critically or logically and are easily persuaded by mob hysteria ! Otherwise , I will get on with my life in a productive and useful way and with as much joy and happiness as I can engender ! I don't think that the planet or the human race is under threat any more than Al Gore's " there was a 75% chance the entire north polar ice cap would likely be gone by 2016".......it is still there intact as ever......melts a bit in Summer and reforms again in Winter.....year after year !....for about the last 20 ,000 years since the recent thawing out from the totally frozen Poles that had been for at least 100,000 years . [ AND THE THAWING WASOBVIOUSLY NOT CAUSED OR CONTRIBUTED TO BY MANKIND WAS IT !!!!]................
We are still in an ICE-AGE , but in a warm-interglacial.......so we should just enjoy it , because when it freezes-over again that will END CIVILISATION as we now know it ! AND IT WILL !
Sorry Hannah ! I didn't address your "generational divide" question did I ?
Yes.......it's there and it exists ......but as I said " Ignorance , feelings and emotion abound ! "
Saint Greta of Thunberg is a case in point ! So immature ! A bit of schooling would have helped perhaps ? A case of 'parental neglect" maybe ? Who knows WHAT CONVICTIONS she holds now ! She seems confused and has become part of the "wealthy" RENT A CROWD.
I hope that a decent school curriculum will correct the current misconceptions on the threats of Climate Change .....and even if it doesn't eventuate.........the climate will do whatever it pleases , always has , always will. Humans are at it's whim and it's will and ANYTHING WE DO TO ALTER THAT will probably backfire like most "well intentioned plans" do ! So , I hope any "global engineering ideas" are not attempted !
From Aristotle's "to know, and not to do, is not to know", I believe in revealed preference. Watch what people do, not what they say.
People's revealed preferences show comprehensively that they do not believe in climate change. They get on planes for frivolous reasons. They buy fashion clothes. They replace perfectly serviceable appliances, and redecorate their homes out of boredom, consuming carbon-intensive products in the process. They make lots of unnecessary car and train trips. They drive to talks that tell them things they already know, to virtue-signal.
Whatever people say, whatever surveys say, the reality is that almost nobody actually believes in climate change. Their actions prove it.
Matt Yglesias: "Reuters did a survey recently that showed 69% of Americans say the United States should take “aggressive” action to combat climate change, but only 34% would be willing to pay $100 more per year in taxes to achieve that goal. A hundred bucks is not a lot of money. People spend that on Halloween decorations. A nice dinner date could cost you more than that.
[W]hat we’ve seen time and again is that there just really isn’t a public appetite for this. Washington State tried the neoliberal idea of a revenue-neutral carbon tax and it got crushed in a referendum. So then they tried the left idea of a carbon tax to fund progressive stuff and it
also got crushed."
Cited in "Climate activists are to blame for some of the suffering caused by climate change"
Thank you, Hannah, for this. I'm wondering what the gap looks like for climate change adaptation, for example managed retreat from rising sea levels. I see a lot of opposition from homeowners, who, of course, skew older.
Definitely a false dichotomy. ‘ Everything ‘ is needed in the battle to save a liveable planet for nature and a majority of the global population.
There is a metric that individuals can use to determine whether their life style is sustainable- or not. Your carbon footprint. This can be measured, all be it somewhat loosely, using, for instance, online tools. ( suggest using more than 1 and taking an average).
Currently the planet ‘ allows’ each of us less than 2 tonnes of emissions.
Many of my friends are poor and this means they are necessarily close to this measure.
If you are close, or alternatively if you can afford to emit multiple tons, either way the amount you would need to spend on mitigating your excess does reflect your income.
Yes a sacrifice is needed…. But a few cups of cafe coffee at one end - or one less foreign holiday - either way, if you do less and yes you are kidding yourself.
I’ve used primarily Biochar production to maintain C negativity for several years.
I’m not rich relative to my fellow citizens. Some sacrifice is necessary- but I love my children more than life itself and see nature’s heartbreaking decline.
( As far as the worth of individual contributions go - look up the effect of Mao’s instruction to people to kill 4 ‘pests'! )
As a (near) 70 year old, I too enjoyed your thought provoking book. I have children and grandchildren, and their future welfare is at the forefront of my mind in looking to do something about climate change. I also agree that individual actions are just as important as actions taken by governments and corporations. We are all in this together! So I believe nearly everyone can do something - from lightbulbs to insulation to heat pumps and solar panels. Even adjusting settings on a gas boiler can reduce gas consumption, cost nothing and save money!
Many thanks for your well informed and data driven blog.
What might be helpful to remember — for people of all ages — is that climate change isn’t entirely new or unprecedented. It’s another example of a pattern we’ve seen before:
• Science or technology brings progress — but also unintended harm
• Scientists detect the damage
• Powerful interests deny or delay
• Eventually, the truth prevails and society acts
We’ve seen it with lead in gasoline, tobacco, CFCs and the ozone layer, DDT and more. In each case, science helped solve a problem it helped create — despite denial and delay.
One encouraging constant? Younger generations tend to internalize scientific realities more quickly. They’ve often been the first to push for action, and their instincts have usually been right. The real question now is whether we let delay win again, or finally break the pattern.
I may be the exception, 78 years old, but I'm scared shitless about Climate Change and the effect is will have on my Children and Grandchildren. I am a Biologist/Ecologist by education. a UConn Master Gardener, and have been aware of the effects for over 30 years. I live in a Climate Zone 6, Northern Connecticut, and when I moved here 50 years ago it was Zone 5, and I haven't moved. I have plants supposedly only Hardy to Zone 7 that have been Thriving in my Gardens for a decade. It's as real as it can be.
I'm in my eighth decade, and I first heard about anthropogenic global warming in 1988, when James Hansen testified to Congress. I was working as a support contractor at Goddard Space Flight Center, and witnessed a large majority of NASA earth scientists quickly forming a consensus that AGW was real and troubling. Having trained in Natural Sciences to the doctoral level before finding an easier way to make a living, I had no difficulty reaching the same conclusions; it's basic physics, after all, recognized by science for more than a century. I was soon dismayed, however, by the denialism actively propagated in the American public sphere, for the private benefit of fossil carbon producers and investors.
Dr. Ritchie has heard this all before, but for hypothetical uncommitted lurkers, my training included some Economics, which led me to view AGW as a "Tragedy of the Commons": a result of the global "free" market's ancient propensity to socialize every transaction cost it can get away with. Since neither producers or consumers historically accounted for the marginal climate-change cost of fossil carbon in the market price, the aggregate cost is now being paid for by involuntary third parties, most heavily by those with the least lifetime emissions. Garrett Hardin, who coined "TotC" in 1968, suggested that only collective intervention ("mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon") could mitigate common-pool resource tragedies like AGW. That's because too few individuals will make private sacrifices for the common good, unless everyone else does also (the "Free Rider" problem)!
Any private sacrifice that's more than virtue-signalling, is arguably virtuous. Yet unless we're wholly "off the grid", every good or service Americans buy is produced with some fossil carbon, usually the cheapest energy available because its price doesn't include the marginal climate impact. National policy is required, to drive the otherwise-free market to replace fossil fuels with carbon-neutral energy throughout the US economy. Intervention can be in the form of direct carbon pricing, e.g. a carbon fee/tax; incentives for carbon-neutral energy development, e.g. the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022; or more draconian measures, e.g. emissions caps on businesses. Disclaimer: my preference is for a national carbon fee and dividend with border adjustment tariff (https://citizensclimatelobby.org/price-on-carbon). Without some kind of decarbonization policy, however, the cumulative cost of AGW is open-ended!
Of course, collective intervention inevitably involves politics. Any effective public policy will take profit away from carbon capitalists, who can be expected to invest heavily in thwarting it. I leave it to SBN readers to come to their own conclusions, and vote accordingly.
If these numbers were votes it would be a majority government with global warming as the top priority.
As an older 66 year old, I did enjoy your book and often use your site for research and talks. We are working hard to get to Net 0. At the moment we are over 80% there. We have both passive solar and solar PV to power our home AND vehicles. https://www.amazon.com/Driving-Net-Stories-Carbon-Future/dp/0692143831
It just shows how the population has been brainwashed on this subject.
Thanks for this discussion. Very thought-provoking. Especially fascinated by the age gap between belief in individual action vs systemic change. Was there are “both” category?
Contentious subject ? Yes......and ignorance and "feelings" and emotion abound !
FACT : Science , reason , logic and common-sense are seldom employed by "climate scientists" !
There just isn't enough glory or books and money in it otherwise !
Climate is ALWAYS CHANGING , so , depending on how you "frame the questions" you will get exactly the answer you want ! And yes , humans ARE predictable , malleable , able to manipulated and led like sheep !The "Main Stream Media" [ MSM] do it everyday !
"David Bellamy had several qualifications and achievements. He held an honors degree in botany and a PhD in botany from Chelsea College of Science and Technology (now part of King's College London) and Bedford College, respectively. He was also an Honorary Fellow of Royal Holloway, University of London for his contributions to botany and environmental communication. Additionally, he was a well-known broadcaster and conservationist, hosting several TV shows and serving as president of various environmental organizations." He literally started Conservation:
Bellamy was a prominent figure in conservation, serving as president of organizations like The Conservation Foundation and various Wildlife Trusts. He was awarded an OBE.
He spent his 50th birthday in prison in Tasmania after blockading the Franklin River in protest against a proposed dam. "And in 1996 he let rip against wind farms (‘because they don’t work’) "
"Until, we touch on climate change and the vicious backlash he suffered when, in 2004, and in the face of scientific convention and public opinion, he dismissed man-made global warming as ‘poppycock! ...’‘From that moment, I really wasn’t welcome at the BBC. They froze me out, because I don’t believe in global warming. My career dried up. I was thrown out of my own conservation groups and I got spat at in London.""Bellamy also set up endless charities and campaigning groups (he was patron of more than 400 at one time — ‘I helped to start conservation’)
The killer blow came when he was dropped by The Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts, of which he was president. ‘I worked with the Wildlife Trusts for 52 years. And when they dropped me, they didn’t even tell me...They didn’t have the guts. I read about it in the newspapers. Can you believe it? Now they don’t want to be anywhere near me. But what are they doing? The WWF might have saved a few pandas, but what about the forests? What have Greenpeace done?
VERSUS :
"Sir David Attenborough's primary qualifications stem from his extensive work as a broadcaster, writer, and naturalist, particularly in the field of natural history and educational television programming. He is widely recognized for his popular and influential television series, most notably the "Life" series. While not formally a scientist, his work has significantly contributed to public understanding of science and the natural world" UNTIL LATTERLY when he has become a full-blown
Catastrophic-Climate-Change-Activist !......"falsely presenting videos" that are not factual at all .....lies actually..supporting "global warming" in theory........and he has been awarded a Knighthood !
.
As Ned Kelly is supposed to have uttered just before he was hanged : "SUCH IS LIFE !"
.
Once you sort the wheat from the chaff by ASKING THE QUESTIONS directly and removing the "FRAME" you arrive at a totally different conclusion Hannah.
e.g. "Do you believe in Climate Change ?" Answer : "Yes......because it's always changing !"
e.g. "Do you believe that MANKIND is causing Climate Change ?" Answer : " Perhaps ! "
e.g. "How is MANKIND causing Climate Change ?" Answer : " I don't know , but it's possible that mankind is contributing , but since the changes are so small , it's impossible to be certain "
e.g. " Is Climate-Change responsible for all the Terrible Natural Disasters that we are seeing now ?"
ANSWER: " No , the floods , droughts , fires and tsunamis are all something that happens every so often ! Even though there are far more people now , there are far fewer people killed or injured now than there were in the past because we have better adaption and better warning systems "
e.g. "Catastrophic-Climate-Change will raise sea-levels and flood many coastal areas and cities !"
ANSWER : "Possibly , but we will build dykes and sea-walls or move to higher ground . Most of the Netherlands is below sea-level now . Perhaps we can adapt like the Dutch people have done"
e.g. "What do you fear most about Climate-Change ?" ANSWER: " Nothing. It is happening very slowly , if at all , and the warming may , or may not , be due to any extra CO2 , and so far it has been entirely beneficial . The extra warmth and the extra CO2 is "greening the planet" .
e.g. "What about the wildlife that can't move or adapt ?" ANSWER: "It will move or adapt or it will die out........like 99.99% of every other life-form that has ever existed on the planet ! "
e.g. "What do you propose to do to stop Catastrophic-Climate-change !" ANSWER : " Well , for starters , STOP using that doom and gloom terminology. So far there has been NO CATASTROPHE
only threats from "ignorant climate activists" many of whom struggle to read and write due to our rotten , indoctrinating-and school-curricula ! They are unable to think critically or logically and are easily persuaded by mob hysteria ! Otherwise , I will get on with my life in a productive and useful way and with as much joy and happiness as I can engender ! I don't think that the planet or the human race is under threat any more than Al Gore's " there was a 75% chance the entire north polar ice cap would likely be gone by 2016".......it is still there intact as ever......melts a bit in Summer and reforms again in Winter.....year after year !....for about the last 20 ,000 years since the recent thawing out from the totally frozen Poles that had been for at least 100,000 years . [ AND THE THAWING WASOBVIOUSLY NOT CAUSED OR CONTRIBUTED TO BY MANKIND WAS IT !!!!]................
We are still in an ICE-AGE , but in a warm-interglacial.......so we should just enjoy it , because when it freezes-over again that will END CIVILISATION as we now know it ! AND IT WILL !
So , cheer up ! Things can only get worse !"
.
Regards , Trevor.
Sorry Hannah ! I didn't address your "generational divide" question did I ?
Yes.......it's there and it exists ......but as I said " Ignorance , feelings and emotion abound ! "
Saint Greta of Thunberg is a case in point ! So immature ! A bit of schooling would have helped perhaps ? A case of 'parental neglect" maybe ? Who knows WHAT CONVICTIONS she holds now ! She seems confused and has become part of the "wealthy" RENT A CROWD.
I hope that a decent school curriculum will correct the current misconceptions on the threats of Climate Change .....and even if it doesn't eventuate.........the climate will do whatever it pleases , always has , always will. Humans are at it's whim and it's will and ANYTHING WE DO TO ALTER THAT will probably backfire like most "well intentioned plans" do ! So , I hope any "global engineering ideas" are not attempted !
Regards , Trevor.
Trevor, Trevor. Indoor voice, please.
I speak a bit LOUDER so that people like you who claim to be Maladapted can actually HEAR what I am attempting to communicate.
Apologies if it offends your sensibilities Maladapted !
Utter bs and if you don’t know it, you should.
Sorry about your STUTTER bbbbbblak , but all I can say is , show me the FACTS that prove me wrong before you 'offer your opinion' !
From Aristotle's "to know, and not to do, is not to know", I believe in revealed preference. Watch what people do, not what they say.
People's revealed preferences show comprehensively that they do not believe in climate change. They get on planes for frivolous reasons. They buy fashion clothes. They replace perfectly serviceable appliances, and redecorate their homes out of boredom, consuming carbon-intensive products in the process. They make lots of unnecessary car and train trips. They drive to talks that tell them things they already know, to virtue-signal.
Whatever people say, whatever surveys say, the reality is that almost nobody actually believes in climate change. Their actions prove it.
Matt Yglesias: "Reuters did a survey recently that showed 69% of Americans say the United States should take “aggressive” action to combat climate change, but only 34% would be willing to pay $100 more per year in taxes to achieve that goal. A hundred bucks is not a lot of money. People spend that on Halloween decorations. A nice dinner date could cost you more than that.
[W]hat we’ve seen time and again is that there just really isn’t a public appetite for this. Washington State tried the neoliberal idea of a revenue-neutral carbon tax and it got crushed in a referendum. So then they tried the left idea of a carbon tax to fund progressive stuff and it
also got crushed."
Cited in "Climate activists are to blame for some of the suffering caused by climate change"
chapter p. 440 here https://www.onestepforanimals.org/uploads/2/7/9/9/27990461/losingmyreligions.pdf
Thank you, Hannah, for this. I'm wondering what the gap looks like for climate change adaptation, for example managed retreat from rising sea levels. I see a lot of opposition from homeowners, who, of course, skew older.
Definitely a false dichotomy. ‘ Everything ‘ is needed in the battle to save a liveable planet for nature and a majority of the global population.
There is a metric that individuals can use to determine whether their life style is sustainable- or not. Your carbon footprint. This can be measured, all be it somewhat loosely, using, for instance, online tools. ( suggest using more than 1 and taking an average).
Currently the planet ‘ allows’ each of us less than 2 tonnes of emissions.
Many of my friends are poor and this means they are necessarily close to this measure.
If you are close, or alternatively if you can afford to emit multiple tons, either way the amount you would need to spend on mitigating your excess does reflect your income.
Yes a sacrifice is needed…. But a few cups of cafe coffee at one end - or one less foreign holiday - either way, if you do less and yes you are kidding yourself.
I’ve used primarily Biochar production to maintain C negativity for several years.
I’m not rich relative to my fellow citizens. Some sacrifice is necessary- but I love my children more than life itself and see nature’s heartbreaking decline.
( As far as the worth of individual contributions go - look up the effect of Mao’s instruction to people to kill 4 ‘pests'! )
True , on the same page with your observation.