None of your evidence has proven that to be the case, it’s proven to be the opposite. I’m very lucky to be on an income way above the average. I don’t make the 1% you claim, I only think you mean 10%.
If it is $45,000 or more then you are in the top 1% as defined by that calculator. It only take $17000 dollars to put you into the top 10%!
If you have chosen to use your income to support other dependants- then that's not evidence that you don't earn enough to qualify for the 1% of global salary.
Even using it as a household calculator- 2 adults on UK average wage with one child would be in the 93rd percentile…. Two adults on £40k with two kids would be back above the 95th percentile.
I know it makes attacking the super rich harder (#arewethebaddies 🤣) so it’s a tough pill to swallow, but we are all very very lucky folks to have a choice about any of this stuff.
Yes. someone on an average income in the UK or other wealthy country is way up in the top percentiles on a global scale. FFS, one decent mountain bike would be a year's salary for most people in poorer countries.
From the World Bank
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?name_desc=false
China has GDP per capita of $12,720
India 2,388
Indonesia 4,788
****stan 1,596
Nigeria 2,184
Brazil 8,917
Bangladesh 2,688
Across the whole world, the GDP per capita is $12,647
Those countries have a combined population of close to four billion people. The United Kingdom has GDP per capita of $45,850, so an average UK income is in the ballpark of 10x the income for half the world and close to 4x the global average. An average earner in the UK is very wealthy on a global scale.
If it is $45,000 or more then you are in the top 1% as defined by that calculator. It only take $17000 dollars to put you into the top 10%!
1 person in the household and you’ve gone up to $45k dollars. That’s still not the UK average family income.
This is what I originally said…
So… the average UK salary of £26400 ish after tax puts you in the top 2.8% globally with this calculator.
I’d wager the average STW salary is a tad higher….
So my instinctive guess was not magnitudes of order out…..
Reading this you are highly likely to be in the top 1% of global income……
I guess after years of the Guardian demonising the “1%” it stings for folk to discover that was you all along #arewethebaddies
https://amp.theguardian.com/money/2022/jan/07/richest-uk-households-worth-at-least-36m-each
Original point was simply that the optics of someone buying an EV as a climate-warrior lifestyle choice telling an immigrant Greek docker that they can’t fly abroad with their life savings is pretty revolting.
Why are you lot comparing absolute incomes across countries with wildly different costs of living?
What you need to compare is spending power.
Original point was simply that the optics of someone buying an EV as a climate-warrior lifestyle choice telling an immigrant Greek docker that they can’t fly abroad with their life savings is pretty revolting.
It is, but that doesn't mean that it's then justifiable for everyone to do whatever they want. This is not a personal debate. The 'yeah but look at them' playground complaint does not work here. The climate does not care if someone else is consuming more than you.
Why are you indulging this clown with a diversion away from the thread subject?
It's classic troll behaviour and has got some of you in a froth about a distraction. A troll is a troll is a troll. They're good 'cos many of you cannot see through the very thin veneer of whatabouttery. Or are you all now converts to the land use school of climate change denying troll-onomics?
If a minted Tory minister says “we’re all in this together” about a topic- what is the reaction of this forum usually?
As I say- this stinks of climate colonialism. Developing nations (Scotland? 😉🤣) sat on huge fossil fuel reserves being told by the inventors of the Industrial Revolution “sorry old bean, atmosphere is full” just isn’t going to stick is it.
This is why the world will come to fist fights- energy gate keeping, not famine!
Hi all,
I wonder this a lot lately. As I cycle to work and am passed by an endless procession of luxury 2-ton SUVs, it does rather seem that we’ll collectively fail at mitigating perhaps nothing but the worst effects of global heating. Given the coverage in the more reputable papers, I can’t quite fathom the juxtaposition of it against day-to-day life.
So assuming nothing is achieved, and we continue to double down on our insatiable consumption habits, will things breakdown suddenly or bit by bit? Would looking into the future, say in forty years time, be rather like looking today but a much more actue ‘version’ or will it be something nearing widespread collapse?
I struggle to see much above that isn’t pertinent to the OP IMO 🤷🏻♂️
I see @crosshair's still trolling, but can we at least put this dumbest of arguments to bed?:
An average earner in the UK is very wealthy on a global scale
No. Wealthy is relative. If it's £300,000 for a house in the UK and £15,000 for a house in Cambodia, and you get £30kpa in the UK and £1.5kpa in Cambodia then you're equally wealthy. (And both pretty fekking poor).
It's so obvious that this is how "wealth" works that it doesn't need to be restated every other page. These arguments are made to derail threads by people who don't want to talk about the issues at hand.
Sure but that’s not climate change… the point is remove those trains and people will drive instead.
Why not simply replace them with clean, efficient electric versions? No reduction in numbers. I’m not saying get rid of trains, just make them better.
The reason the right (and now Labour…) do so well in polling around climate change when they take a denial viewpoint is because they campaign on the grounds that fixing minimising climate change makes your life worse.
Look at how they market themselves - anti ULEZ, anti EV, anti public transport, anti heat pump, anti solar. They cream themselves at the idea of 15 minute cities. Cyclists are both too fast and too slow for them.
not famine!
Well according to my news sources were in the thick of a famine right now.
https://www.wfp.org/global-hunger-crisis
You'll note that the countries worst affected are suffering drought which is the result of expansion of desert belts in repsonse ot climatic change.
Developing nations (Scotland? 😉🤣) sat on huge fossil fuel reserves being told by the inventors of the Industrial Revolution “sorry old bean, atmosphere is full” just isn’t going to stick is it.
It is sticking, for the most part, because they are listening to science and not sentiment.
Interesting to note that a donation to the WFP gets spent on basically the opposite of re-wilding. Ie. turning scrub into farmland.
In just four years of the Sahel Resilience Scale-up, WFP and local communities turned 158,000 hectares of barren fields in the Sahel region of five African countries into farm and grazing land.
Sounds remarkably like a land use issue there.
Highlighting not for point scoring but to show the complexity of balancing natural and farmed habitats against each other to the benefit of the local population.
You're twisting things again, Crosshair. It's not turning scrubland into farmland, it's making farmland made unviable by climatic change viable again. Drilling water wells, building storage lakes, selecting suitable species of crops and tress for reforesting.
You are grossly distorting what is happening to suit your negative agenda.
I've been careful to avoid insult direct or implied so far but there's a word I'm going to have to use for your contributions to STW because I can't think of a better one: nihilism.
Seriously, Crosshair, read this and then read your contributions to the thread and see which aspects of nihilism best fit each of your posts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
You're on a moutain bike forum, people here love riding bikes all over the world wherever they happen to live because we live all over world and you're intent on trashing it (edit: forum and planet in case that wasn't clear).
Why are you indulging this clown with a diversion away from the thread subject?
Not all of us are. What could have been a good topic with good information and ideas has now been completely ruined.
Can you find a new emoji other than the shrug and one question mark is always enough. Other than that, carry on. Oh and what are your feelings on the shape of the earth and the continued existence of Elvis Presley?
“Relations between farmers and herders have improved because there is social cohesion between them. Animals have a place of grazing and no longer spoil farmers’ fields. There is better collaboration between us.” Community-level participant from Burkina Faso.
“WFP has developed very rich grazing areas, the animals of the herders no longer need to graze
in the farmers’ fields, so there is no longer any source of tension.” Community-level participant from Burkina Faso.
From the PDF about the project. Not wanting to be facetious here but- aren't we always told that going vegetarian is a more efficient form of land use? Shouldn't the land used for grazing have been used to grow crops instead?
Sounds like they've intensified the grazing operation by turning unimproved land into productive ag. With Petro-Chemical fertiliser by any chance?
3. Improved relationships between farmers and herders. Asset creation activities focused on
restoring degraded environments enhanced natural resource supply and management, reducing conflicts between farmers and herders and allowing them to find ground for symbiotic relations.
So was it Climate Change or stubborn goat herders trashing farmers fields?
It's like it's written by David Brent. (Unless it's just a really bad French translation into Management Speak English in which case- apologies).
I've skimmed the whole thing and none of it sounds any worse than the famines on TV in the 80's?
I've reported, if no guidance or action is forthcoming from on high I'm out.
aren’t we always told that going vegetarian is a more efficient form of land use?
that’s because it is. Cows have a very long growth cycle, emit methane and you also need land to grow food for them. Don’t know if it’s the same in your field but generally speaking they’re also pretty big.
Killing and transporting them is also quite a carbon intensive process too. This was all covered a few pages back and it is really ****ing easy to find credible sources on the subject if you can be arsed.
I’ve skimmed the whole thing and none of it sounds any worse than the famines on TV in the 80’s?
Also that’s not a question. Perhaps you are a simple farmhand after all.
hat’s because it is. Cows have a very long growth cycle, emit methane and you also need land to grow food for them. Don’t know if it’s the same in your field but generally speaking they’re also pretty big.
Okay cool- so follow my point to its conclusion then. Why didn't the project (which claims to be fighting back against climate change) encourage the people right there on the front line, suffering at the hands of the climate emergency to go vegetarian? Surely they of all people need to be doing all they can right?
Instead they 'fought climate change' by (checks notes) "intensifying grazing".
See- the narrative doesn't stack up.
There isn’t a narrative you sad, deluded, pathetic little man. There’s evidence, facts, widespread scientific consensus and then there is you in your utopian field somewhere in England that is proof climate change isn’t an issue because insects. It’s all down to land use and if we just shot more pheasants or something all would be well with the world.
People have tried to reason with you and you just roundly ignore them. Therefore I’m resorting to personal abuse in the hope of killing the thread. If it’s any consolation I’d do the same to your face as I’m not the typical keyboard warrior. Just completely fed up of your ****ing trolling. Have fun in your field 🖕🏼
climate colonialism
Well this was a new one to me
Thank you, moderators, for looking at the thread. I hope we can continue the thread debating our differences of opinion in good faith if anyone still has anything to add.
I found this article very interesting, echoes some of the thoughts on here.
https://www.ft.com/content/60f6e94a-eb3b-4a3e-9ef6-273262967121
I will have to take your word for it
People have tried to reason with you and you just roundly ignore them. Therefore I’m resorting to personal abuse in the hope of killing the thread. If it’s any consolation I’d do the same to your face as I’m not the typical keyboard warrior. Just completely fed up of your **** trolling. Have fun in your field 🖕🏼
Careful, the mods don't like you abusing climate trolls. I tried that strategy and got banned twice for my troubles while the trolls remained free to spread their poison. 🙁
Not wanting to be facetious here
20 pages of bulls**t and crosshair has still just managed to out-troll himself
I will have to take your word for it
General gist of it is...
“It’s very strange,” says US climate scientist, Jonathan Foley. “A few years ago, you had activist climate deniers who were spewing nonsense about climate science and saying, ‘Oh you’re all exaggerating this thing’. And now you have climate doomists saying ‘Oh you’re all underplaying what’s going to happen’.”
I think doomists have yet to cause as much damage as the deniers who helped to stall early efforts to cut carbon emissions, or their modern day brethren who knowingly exaggerate the costs of climate action.
But it is not hard to see doomist thinking spread, especially in a year such as this when a warming El Niño climate pattern is adding to a baseline of human-caused higher temperatures. This is leading to confusion about tipping points and so-called runaway warming.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001pmgn?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile
Good episode of Life Scientific yesterday.
For years we've had the scientific community erring on the side of caution. Wanting to be absolutely sure they could back up their projections with facts, always adding qualifers such as "if we go on as we are", whereas emissions have continued to rise.
Even as a geologist I fell into the trap of peak oil. I knew about fracking and other methods for increasing yields because I was working with people who were working on them but failed to extrapolate to what that would do to peak oil if applied globally. The result is that in my life time peak oil has gone from 1969 to 2035. We are going to emit more than was ever thought posible.
So CO2 emissons have been way ahead of predictions from decades earlier. And climate scientists have been slow to catch up because once you've announce a date forsay +1.5°C and the world's leaders have been using that as a number it's difficult to change the message.
So we're where we are sooner than expected and people only have to turn on the TV to see:
- Unusually strong winds and drough in Hawaii and a fire
- Mud flows in Italy
- fires in France and elsewhere where fires are common
That's since my last list a page back.
I don't see it as doomism, I see it as catchup. People suddenly getting the message, scientists feeling liberated because they've finally got a concensus, people are finally taking note because its no longer possible to ignore and there no longer being a need to err on the side of caution - say it like it is.
It's fascinating the comparison of a 10-year-old STW thread with now:
https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/global-warming-update/page/6/
If you read the thread note that when I was making geological time line comparisons then the current CO
figure was about 35ppm lower than now.
From a social point of view it's interesting how many of the climate sceptics on that thread disappeared into the Internet ether years ago, I wonder if they've changed their minds and would admit it.
The FT article does have a point, and there has def been a bit too much doomerism on this thread for me
On the other hand, the author accuses doomers of hyperbole, then preceeds to repeatedly refer to the fact that scientists do not think the earth is heading towards a Venus like state...
Seriously, I've never heard even those most pessimistic about climate change claim that we are on track to turn the Earth into Venus
There are puddles of lead on the surface of Venus for God's sake
You think there's too much doomerism on this thread, legomeeorology. Who then? Fact check anything I've writen before accusing me or anyone else of doomerism. Be specific or you're just accusing realists of doomerism with nothing to back up that accusation.
Ft is owned by Nikkei and known for a strong bias in favour of business.
@Edukator, that wasn't leveled at you nor anyone else in particular
It's just I feeling I've had at times, but I'm certainly not going to go back through 36 pages just to name names
To be fair, reading my comment that came accross too strongly -- I don't feel that the thread has tended too much towards doomism overall, I just remember reading occasional comments that I felt strayed too far in that direction. For example, comments along the lines of 'we are ****ed until we seriously reduce the population, and if we do not do it Gaia will'
curiosity got the better of me so to back myself up, these are the kind of comments I was thinking of, from early in the thread:
The Earth will recover but we won’t be part of the recovery.
We’re doomed the planet will adapt
eventually there will be no human race – the end
fwiw @Edukator, my realism, if that's what we want to call it, is quite close to yours
I'd seen those comments as well legometrology but you'll note that I didn't contradict them because the geological record tells me that there are probably enough fossil fuels to burn to reach CO2 levels associated with the Cretaceous anoxic events, see link. We've so far gone from say 270ppm to 420ppm and indulged in the destruction of a lot of land biomass (carbon sinks). The oceans too will absorb less CO2 as they warm and plancton species change. Vicious circle.
It was volcanism that produced the CO2 in the Cretaceous, man is doing it now. Sure it's an extreme scenario but one I can't objectively dismiss. Man wouldn't have survived a Cretaceous anoxic event.
It wasn't just the meteorite impact that did for the dinosaurs, it was also climatic change and anoxic events. Just a random google result - well not entirely random, it's one that focusses on the need for accurate paleo CO2 date rather than 1000ppm because I'm always suspicious of round numbers, they quote 650ppm. I haven't read it all but as far as I've read it's good:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018216300967
There are puddles of lead on the surface of Venus for God’s sake
Yes. And the melting point of lead is 327.5 celcius. So clearly, pretty much all life, including microbial, would be a goner.
But this year the average surface sea temperature in Florida is 38.4 degrees.
That's hotter than your average hot tub. It's not livable in by any earth-based animal that can't get access to colder water.
End of. Water too hot to live in, and we enjoy it for shits and giggles, largely oblivious, because our average IQ is woefully inadequate.
this year the average surface sea temperature in Florida is 38.4 degrees.
Can you have a sea surface temperature on land?
Can you have a sea surface temperature on land?
Given the oceans are "taking one for the team" by absorbing most of the temperature rise, to the detriment of the ecosystem that produces the vast majority of the oxygen we all breathe, who gives a fluff?
I guess your I'm-alright-jack glasses can't see that. Must be a failure in schooling, or something.
