plant lover, cookie monster, shoe fiend
17867 stories
·
21 followers

The men who like women and the men who don't. Yes we can tell.

1 Share

A few weeks ago wrote about what makes actor Glenn Powell so appealing and I have not been able to stop thinking about something she said.

What makes him so appealing? Obviously he’s no eye sore, but Peterson points out that it’s far more than that. She says the main thing that sets Glenn Powell apart from other actors is that he likes women.

But isn’t that pretty basic? Don’t most men like women?

You would think so wouldn’t you, but actually no. Here’s what Peterson says about Glenn’s revolutionary quality of liking women:

“It’s different than knowing you can get women, or wanting to control women, or even loving women. He likes them. He appreciates them. He enjoys their company.”

Specifically the part of the article that keeps running around my mind rent free is this paragraph:

“Tom Cruise doesn’t like women. Neither does Miles Teller. Channing Tatum likes women. So does Ryan Gosling. Brad Pitt used to like women but doesn’t anymore. Leonardo Di Caprio only likes them occasionally. Bradley Cooper doesn’t, George Clooney does. Matt Damon doesn’t, Ben Affleck only does in that one scene in the J.Lo documentary. Marlon Brando didn’t, Montgomery Clift did. Paul Newman didn’t onscreen but did IRL. Cary Grant did, John Wayne definitely, definitely didn’t. Will Smith pretends like he doesn’t but I’m not convinced. Mark Wahlberg absolutely does not, but Daniel Day-Lewis does. So does Paul Mescal.”

Whoa. Mind blown emoji.

I had to set my phone down and chew on this for a moment.

I was taken back by how even though I have never thought of this metric before, I could immediately pick out the pattern in my own life.

Of its own accord my brain started scanning through the men I know. I was shocked how easily I could differentiate between who likes women and who doesn’t:

  • The man Rich and I played pickle ball with this morning who only spoke to my husband and ignored me.

  • My friend’s husband whom in my presence has never asked a woman a question about her life, who once said women speaking in general conference were only good for naps and snacks.

  • My uncle who after spending every Easter, Thanksgiving and Christmas with my family and I for 18 years, did not know my name.

  • My last Mormon bishop.

  • The man we played pickle ball with who spoke to both my husband and I equally with humor and grace.

  • My cousin’s husband who listened intently to my feminist soapboxing on a six hour road trip this summer responding with, “Wow, I’ve never thought of it that way before,” and “What was the name of that book again?” (Dan, you’re such a gem)

  • My uncle who always asks me about what I’m writing whenever I see him.

  • My second to last Mormon bishop.

Perhaps these are unfairly stark delineations. Perhaps my uncle developed single-issue amnesia. Perhaps I had spinach in my teeth which pickle ball man #1 found so off-putting that he had no choice but to direct all his words to my husband.

But still…. there’s something here. I can’t stop noticing.

It’s in the listening, the curiosity, the respect. It’s in the eye contact. It’s how they speak of other women or speak over women. It’s whether or not they ever read women authors, listen to podcasts hosted by women.

As Anne Helen Peterson put it:

“It’s a lot easier to not be an asshole when you’re not obsessed with performing dominance….. It's palpable in the way Powell looks at all these women — he really, intently focuses on them, which is a surprisingly rare thing onscreen and in real life.”

It’s certainly disheartening how rare this quality is in men, but something I read recently in ’s book For the Love of Men helps explain why it is that so few men like women.

Through hundreds of interviews she shows how men are penalized for not performing masculinity so early, so often and so intensely that to safely navigate the world, their unconscious north star becomes stuck on “be masculine.”

Kindergarten boys get made fun of at school for liking girly shows like My Little Pony, parents don’t allow their boys to leave the house in girly clothes, teenage boys are ridiculed for having a girly voice.

From the time boys are preschoolers on up through adulthood- the worst thing to be is like a girl. The worst way to run is like a girl, the worst music is girly music, the worst things to care about are the things girls care about, the worst way to act is like a girl.

“The smallest transgression of traditional masculinity, leads to huge, enormous acts of rejection from other men. Often from the men they care the most about.” - Liz Plank

Is it any wonder boys don’t like girls? Is it any wonder they grow up to be men who don’t respect women? When their entire lives they’ve been conditioned to shun all things feminine?

Why would they like the embodiment of everything they’ve been taught to hate?

Even if it makes sense culturally why they don’t like women, you would like to think men at least want to be perceived as someone who does.

I would like to think that if Tom Cruise or Mark Wahlberg read Anne Helen Peterson’s article, they would be appalled to be listed as men who do not like women.

I would like to think that concern and self-reflection would flood their system upon hearing the news. That they would rush out shoe-less like Ebenezer Scrooge on Christmas morning in their haste to ask the women in their lives if they are feeling heard and respected. That Tom and Mark would immediately seek to course correct and improve, bubbling with urgency to change their ways and start listening to women.

But the unfortunate truth is… successful men have little reason to care if they are perceived as someone who likes women. How they treat women has little to no effect on a man’s career, monetary success, popularity or reputation.

There was no penalty to Brad Pitt’s career when it came out that he hit Angelina Jolie on that plane. Tom Cruise still remains the highest paid actor in the world despite the gross, creepy ways he controlled and treated all three of his wives. David Beckham is hailed as good guy father of the century despite the numerous times he’s been caught cheating.

The sad truth is that men don’t NEED to like or respect women to successfully walk through the world. Not at all.

In men’s daily lives- in their jobs, in their church, in their friend groups- social capital is gained solely through other men.

So they often don’t care if women feel disrespected by them. They care if men respect them. And the price of gaining mens’ respect often comes at the cost of disrespecting women.

And I’m not talking about sexual predators. Our standard for who we call good men is astonishingly low (basically anyone who is not abusing women, but sometimes even then).

Men get to proudly wear that title of “good” man WHILE not respecting women, not listening to women, not liking women. Treating women like an equal is not a requirement for being a good man.

Earlier this year I wrote an article called Never Meet Your Heroes’ Wives. I wrote about how Albert Einstein, the hero of modern physics used his wife’s research without crediting her, was never faithful and then left her to marry his cousin. I wrote about how Carl Sagan, the hero of compassionate atheism hit his wife, about how Gandhi, the hero of nonviolent activism forced naked teenage girls to sleep in his bed.

In order to be a hero in our world, in order to be labeled a good man, in order to be successful, treating women well is simply not a requirement.

I wish it was. I wish Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt and Mark Wahlberg were awash with shame to be seen as not liking women. I wish it was terribly embarrassing for any man to not respect women.

Here’s what I scribbled down this morning in my poetry notebook as I was pondering this phenomenon:

I imagine I was a man in a past life. Many times over. As a man in the 8th century, the 14th or the 20th, I imagine I thought of women only to the extent my circumstances required. I imagine my treatment of women was perfectly explained by my culture, conditioning, hormones, family, class, laws, religion, father and country. I imagine it would have been understandable for me to objectify women as I sat around drinking with my mates. I imagine it would be understandable to be annoyed when my wife nagged me, when my female family members made demands of my time and attention. It would be understandable for me to barely think of women at all except when I needed something from them. And yet. Through all of the understandable, explainable behavior- I hope I listened to the women in my life. Even with no good reason to. I hope when my wife spoke, I stopped what I was doing and leaned forward, granting her my full attention. Even though I didn't need to be, I hope I was curious about my niece's dreams. Even though there was no reward for doing so, I hope I asked for my sister-in-law's opinions on things. And more than attracting them, more than needing them, more even than loving them, I hope the women in my life knew that I liked them.

Tell me- have you noticed whether or not the men in your life like women? Can you now? Do they care if they are perceived as not liking women?

Leave a comment

Read the whole story
sarcozona
12 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Starliner spacecraft returns safely without crew from International Space Station : NPR

1 Comment

The beleaguered Starliner spacecraft, built by Boeing, successfully landed in New Mexico just after midnight, ending a crucial test flight that proved to be a real headache for NASA.

Officials at the space agency feared that Starliner’s thrusters might malfunction during its return, just as some thrusters had on its journey to the International Space Station.

That’s why, when the gumdrop-shaped space capsule parachuted down to Earth, it carried only cargo—and its first crew remained safely on board the International Space Station.

Leaving them there “was a tough decision to make. It was really hard to determine whether to be uncrewed or not,” Steve Stich, the program manager for NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, told reporters earlier this week.

But there was enough uncertainty with regard to how the thrusters would perform that NASA officials preferred to err on the side of caution. The space agency, after all, remains haunted by two past disasters, the loss of space shuttles Columbia and Challenger and their crews.

Starliner launched on June 5th with astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams on board, and Boeing and NASA initially said their test flight would last about eight days.

Instead, the mission stretched out for weeks as Boeing and NASA workers tried to understand why some thrusters had failed as Starliner approached the station.

The decision to bring Starliner back without its crew means that the astronauts will have to live on the station until February.

“Since we knew this was a test flight, with intention we put them through long-duration space station training,” says Dana Weigel, NASA’s program manager for the station, who adds that the astronauts have been helping out with chores and science experiments. “We had them well prepared to move into this role.”

The astronauts will be going home on a previously scheduled flight by Boeing’s competitor, SpaceX. NASA had to rejigger its plans to make sure two seats would be free in that SpaceX capsule.

What’s more, in case the space station suffers an emergency that forces an evacuation before that capsule arrives, the station’s crew had to jerry-rig two extra seats in a different SpaceX spacecraft that’s currently docked there.

All of this has been a blow to aerospace giant Boeing. Starliner had two previous flights, without a crew on board, and both experienced problems — its first flight, in 2019, didn’t even make it to the station.

SpaceX, meanwhile, received less money from NASA to develop a commercial space taxi service, yet nonetheless managed to develop a vehicle that’s been taking astronauts to and from the station for years.

NASA started its commercial crew program to encourage industry to take over the job of ferrying astronauts and cargo to the station, so that it could focus on going back to the moon and beyond.

Now that Starliner is back on the ground, Boeing and NASA will further analyze the thrusters to see if modifying the spacecraft or how its flown could keep the thrusters from overheating in the future.

Mission managers put the thrusters through their paces after Starliner undocked from the station and before it piloted itself to a safe landing at White Sands Space Harbor in New Mexico.

“Many parts of the flight went extremely well, and Starliner is a great spacecraft,” says Stich. “What we really need to go do is look at the things that didn’t perform the way we expected.”

Read the whole story
sarcozona
21 hours ago
reply
Phew
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Scientists want you to know there’s just no way wildfire smoke is good for your health

1 Share
From respiratory illnesses to dementia, wildfire smoke increases a number of health risks. As Canadian summers get hotter and drier, here’s everything you need to know

Read the whole story
sarcozona
22 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

If you want to play women’s tennis at the top level, there’s a huge benefit to being ____. Not just ____, but exceptionally ___, outlier-outlier ___. (And what we can learn about social science from this stylized fact.)

1 Share

If you want to play basketball at the top level, there’s a huge benefit to being tall. Not just tall, but exceptionally tall, outlier-outlier tall. If you’re an American and at least 7 feet tall and the right age, it’s said that there’s a 1-in-7 chance you’ll play in the NBA (but maybe that’s an overestimate; we’re still looking into that one).

Here’s another one for you. If you want to play women’s tennis at the top level, there’s a huge benefit to being ____. Not just ____, but exceptionally ___, outlier-outlier ___.

Take a guess and continue:

The answer to this fill-in-the-bank is “rich.”

Paul Campos reports:

At the moment, five American women are ranked among the top 30 women tennis players in the world, per the current WTA rankings. . . . two of the five women have a billionaire parent.

Whaaaa? OK, I googled *wta women’s tennis ratings*, which takes us to this page:


Actually, those 5 Americans are in the top 20, so I don’t know why Campos said “top 30.” Maybe in tennis the top 30 is a thing that people talk about, I dunno.

In any case, yeah, Campos ain’t kidding. Google the five U.S. players above, and indeed two of them are literal children of billionaires. According to wikipedia, one of those billionaires worked for Goldman Sachs and Citigroup before founding his own investment services company; the other worked for Getty Oil before founding his own natural gas drilling company, which he eventually sold to some major oil companies.

The other women in the top 20 are mostly children of top-tier athletes: some pro tennis players, an internationally competitive ping-pong player, badminton, football, basketball, etc. A mix of sports, actually. And then there are the two children of billionaires.

Campos runs the numbers:

The top 30 women tennis players in the world currently range in age from 17 to 34. Using that — unrealistically but we can’t make this too complicated too early in the morning — as a hard cutoff for the possible age range of top 30 in the world women tennis players, that means you have 18 relevant birth years: 1990-2007 (more or less). How many girls were born in America, collectively, in those 18 years? The answer is about 37 million. So if you were a girl born in America between 1990 and 2007 your odds of being one of the top 30 women tennis players in the world in July 2024 are about 7.4 million to one.

He continues:

But let’s toss just one little confounder into this equation: What if your parent happens to be a billionaire? There are currently 756 billionaires in the USA.

If billionaires average one daughter each, and, say, half these daughters are currently between 17 and 34 years old, then that would be 378 tennis-pro-age daughters out there, so the probability that a randomly-selected one of them is a world top 30 tennis player is 2/378, or about 1 in 200. OK, that’s just a rough calculation, but you get the point.

There are several interesting angles here.

1. Meritocracy. Campos writes that “this apparently trivial stat illustrates quite beautifully just how absurd the idea of ‘the meritocracy’ really is.” I wrote about this a few years ago in a post entitled, “Meritocracy won’t happen: the problem’s with the ‘ocracy’.”

The logic goes as follows: Under meritocracy, the people with merit get the spoils; they run the place—that’s the “ocracy” part! One of the goodies you get from merit is the ability to get nice things for your kids, things like fancy cars, houses in good neighborhoods, and . . . successful careers. Like being a top-20 tennis player.

The point is that seeing ultra-rich kids becoming tennis champions is not a sign that our society is not meritocratic (sorry, reader, for the double negative there!). Actually, it’s a strong indicator of meritocracy: these dudes had the merit to succeed in business, and they used their resulting “ocracy” to give their kids what it took to reach the top. If it hadn’t been that, maybe the kids would’ve become world-class musicians, or comedy writers, or artists, or some other field where some combination of connections and training can give you that leg up.

2. Paradigms about fairness in the economy. The 7-footers-in-the-NBA statistic tells a story about economic efficiency. Pro basketball pays so well and gets so much publicity that it sucks some large percentage of all the available talent in the country, at least to the extent that “basketball talent” is associated with extreme height and some minimal level of athleticism. In contrast, the billionaires’-daughters-in-professional-tennis tells a story about economic inefficiency. There’s so much slack in professional women’s tennis that extreme wealth plus high motivation are enough, in themselves, to give someone a solid shot at the top echelon.

You can see why the NBA story would gain traction on the right; see here and followup here, where Tyler Cowen writes, “the NBA shows that it is possible, over time, to do a much better job of both finding and mobilizing talent.” And you can also see how the women’s tennis story fits a narrative on the left; indeed, in his post Campos makes an explicit connection: “taking money from the rich and giving it to everybody else is both the right thing to do — see statistics on women tennis players above, which illustrate just how preposterous the idea is that people “earn” their social privilege — and good politics.” Pick your sport, pick your story.

3. NBA vs. women’s tennis. Bill James wrote about the professionalization of baseball during the past 100+ years, characterized by a greater degree of seriousness at all levels: players starting younger, being paid more, becoming more specialized in their skills, working out during the off-season, being drawn from a wider group of the population, throwing hard and swinging hard on every pitch, and a few other things I can’t quite remember. The modern NBA is pretty much all these things. As for women’s tennis: the players start young and the pay at the top is not bad, but clearly they have far to go on the “being drawn from a wider group of the population” thing.

Taking a group of 400 or so daughters of the super-rich, there’s no reason to expect any stupendous athletic talent, pretty much mo more than you’d expect from 20 years of high school graduates from some random town that graduates 20 women a year. That said, there’s a lot of athletic talent out there in the world, just as there’s a lot of musical talent. If you think of 400 people from your high school, you can probably recall some very talented athletes. Not world’s best, but still awesome, the sort of kids who would be much better than you in any sport they might try, just naturally athletic and motivated to win. For fully-professionalized sports, “awesome in your high school class” won’t do it—minor-league baseball is full of local heroes who couldn’t make it up to the highest levels—but in a “thin” sport such as women’s tennis, a 1-in-400 level of ability seems to be enough.

4. Billionaires vs. millionaires. A baffling aspect of the women’s tennis story is that these women don’t just come from rich families; they come from super-super-rich families.

What’s the mechanism by which a billionaire’s daughter becomes a top-20 tennis player? To start with, it helps for the billionaire to be a sports fan so that he’s motivated to give his daughter all the advantages: private coaching, chartered flights to tournaments, etc. The only thing that’s puzzling me here is that you don’t really need a billion dollars to do all this. A few million should suffice. Meanwhile there are so few billionaires out there. What happened to the ordinary multi-millionaires, those parents who could easily afford private coaching starting at age 0 and all the transportation their kids could possibly need?

I can only speculate here. My guess is that being a billionaire doesn’t just give you the resources to give your child every possible advantage; it also gives you a sense of entitlement. If you’re a normal parent in this country, and your kid shows some ability—and, remember, someone at the 99th percentile of athletic ability really will be impressive—then you’d encourage your kid to play, you might enroll your kid in a sports camp, and if you’re really into sports, you might spring for private coaching, at whatever level matches your income. If you’re wealthy, same thing except that you can afford a membership at the local country club and top coaching. But if you’re really really really wealthy, you think, “Hey, my kid could be a world champion.” Why not? If you’ve personally parlayed your business efforts into ownership of a bank or an oil company or whatever, it could just seem natural that your kid could apply herself and reach the athletic summit. So you’ll push your daughter that much more, or she’ll push herself, having internalized the I’m-a-billionaire-so-I-can-get-everything-I-want attitude.

I dunno. This still doesn’t explain it all to me. I’ve heard enough about rich people in the suburbs and their kids doing 30 hours a week of sports training, that I can only assume there are other rich people in the suburbs whose kids are doing 60 hours a week . . . I guess that if you’re a mere millionaire and you want your daughter to do all this and become a tennis star, it’s still unlikely—but maybe kinda worth it because she’ll still get into Stanford on the tennis team—but if you have an actual billion dollars it’s somehow that much more likely to happen? I remain somewhat baffled.

5. The utility of money. There’s this whole debate in economics about whether money buys happiness. Everyone seems to agree that going from poverty to the middle class is a plus, as is going from the middle class to the upper middle class. After that, there’s some dispute about the marginal value of additional bucks. Leftists like to say that, after a certain point, extra money doesn’t make people happy, so why not redistribute it. Rightists are skeptical about claims of a threshold and point to findings that, even at the high end, money doesn’t just buy you a jetski made of diamonds, it also helps with happiness and life satisfaction. At the same time, right-leaning economists also will often play the populist card and explain why stuffed shirts who buy art or drink expensive wine or go to the symphony or whatever are really being conned. I think the rule is that if the expense is considered high-class, economists will want to puncture the bubble, but if it’s of the man-of-the-people variety (I guess that would include things like fast cars and boats and expensive steaks, but not Van Goghs or vintage wine), they’re inclined to say the money has been well spent.

OK, I drifted there for a moment. What I wanted to say is, this tennis thing is a great example of the continuing utility of money. If you want your daughter to be a top-20 tennis player, there’s something about those extra zeroes at the end of your net worth that makes a difference. 2,000,000,000 really is better than 20,000,000—even though, from an instrumental perspective, it’s hard to see the difference. As noted above, I don’t fully grasp the mechanism, but this is where the data point.

Summary

It’s amazing how much social science we can squeeze out of this one stylized fact. As the saying goes, God is in every leaf of every tree.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
22 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

With NASA’s plan faltering, China knows it can be first with Mars sample return

1 Share
A "selfie" photo of China's Zhurong rover and the Tianwen-1 landing platform on Mars in 2021.

Enlarge / A "selfie" photo of China's Zhurong rover and the Tianwen-1 landing platform on Mars in 2021. (credit: China National Space Administration)

China plans to launch two heavy-lift Long March 5 rockets with elements of the Tianwen-3 Mars sample return mission in 2028, the mission's chief designer said Thursday.

In a presentation at a Chinese space exploration conference, the chief designer of China's robotic Mars sample return project described the mission's high-level design and outlined how the mission will collect samples from the Martian surface. Reports from the talk published on Chinese social media and by state-run news agencies were short on technical details and did not discuss any of the preparations for the mission.

Public pronouncements by Chinese officials on future space missions typically come true, but China is embarking on challenging efforts to explore the Moon and Mars. China aims to land astronauts on the lunar surface by 2030 in a step toward eventually building a Moon base called the International Lunar Research Station.

Read 12 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Read the whole story
sarcozona
22 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

How can we stop the super-rich from polluting the planet? – DW – 01/02/2023

1 Comment and 3 Shares

The fury came fast when makeup mogul Kylie Jenner posted a photograph last July of her and her boyfriend Travis Scott flanked by two private jets and captioned "you wanna take mine or yours?"

"Europe is on fire, meanwhile Kylie Jenner is taking 15-minute trips in her private jet," wrote eating disorder campaigner Cara Lisette in just one of the many viral tweets about Jenner's post. "I could recycle everything, buy all my clothes second hand, compost and grow my own food for the rest of my life and it wouldn't even begin to offset the footprint from one of her flights."

Jenner's Instagram post brought to the surface some of the resentment brewing among young people in rich countries who feel pressured to cut their carbon footprints. It showed the disconnect between the world's biggest polluters and a generation terrified by climate change, angry about injustice and reluctant to give up the unsustainable parts of their own lifestyles.

"This is literally why I stopped trying," wrote one 24-year-old Twitter user.

Recently, private jets owned by celebrities like Taylor Swift and Kim Kardashian have flown distances that could have been driven in a few hours. Their journeys spewed more carbon dioxide in a matter of minutes than the average Indian emits in a year. Flight data shows that one night in early December, the private jets of Kylie Jenner and Travis Scott took the same journey, landing at Van Nuys airport in California, US, just 5 hours apart.

Even then, celebrity emissions in the air are a fraction of those at sea. Mega yachts — like Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich's 162-meter-long boat that comes with two helipads and a swimming pool — emit several times more CO2 than most mansions, planes and limousines combined. A study published in 2021 estimated that Abramovich's yacht emitted more carbon dioxide in 2018 than Tuvalu, a pacific island nation of 11,000 people.

"This is particularly sad," said Beatriz Barros, a researcher at the University of Indiana who led the study, "because the island nations are also the ones who are more at risk of consequences of climate change like rising sea levels."

'Ridiculous' levels of carbon pollution

The biggest inequalities in carbon emissions have for decades been between rich and poor countries. Now, inequalities within countries explain more of the gap between clean and dirty lifestyles. The top 1% of global earners — somebody earning a yearly salary of about €124,000 ($132,000) — are responsible for one-fifth of the growth in carbon pollution in the last 30 years. They live in cities from Miami to Mumbai. 

"The top 1% use basically a similar amount to the bottom 50% of humanity — and so obviously that, just in terms of scale, is a ridiculous proportion of the carbon budget," said Anisha Nazareth, a scientist at the Stockholm Environment Institute studying emissions inequality.

People who fall into that top income bracket do not lead the lavish lifestyles of billionaires. But while private jets and mega yachts are on the extreme end of the scale, cruise ships and commercial passenger planes are close behind.

Flying, for instance, is one of the most polluting activities in the world. Though aviation makes up about 3% of global carbon dioxide emissions, it is the biggest source of pollution for those who fly. Experts estimate just 2-4% of the global population gets onto a plane each year.

In the same way billionaires burn more fossil fuels than almost anyone else, "there are people in the world who would rightly see us in the same relative light," said Ketan Joshi, an independent writer and consultant on clean energy, referring to middle-class people in rich countries. "You are someone's Kylie Jenner."

'Surprising support' for wealthy lifestyles

Researchers have explored ways to fix this. By raising taxes, closing legal loopholes and cracking down on tax havens, policymakers could stop the wealthiest funding the carbon-intensive excesses of their lavish lifestyles. It would also free up more money to invest in clean energy infrastructure needed to stop the planet heating.

But policies to raise taxes often face fierce opposition — even from those who would benefit from them. "In reality, we see a surprising support of the lifestyles of the very wealthy," said Stefan Gössling, a professor at Lund University in Sweden who has studied inequalities in flight emissions. People brought up in cultures that idolize the rich often oppose policies to restrict their lives.

The burden of a flight tax, for instance, would mainly hit richer people — particularly business travelers. In the EU, half the spending on air travel comes from the richest 20%. In the US and Canada, the 19% of adults who take more than four flights a year account for 79% of the flights. Some scientists and politicians have called for a frequent flyer levy, where each extra flight a person takes carries a higher cost.

These inequalities mean policies to tax flights could generate vital revenue from those most able to pay. A study published in October by the International Council on Clean Transport, an environmental think tank, found that a global frequent flyer levy could generate the $121 billion needed in investments each year to decarbonize aviation through 2050. Frequent fliers who take more than six flights per year — and make up just 2% of the population — would pay 81% of it.

Policymakers could also curb emissions from the very richest by banning private jets that run on kerosene. Such a ban would hit only a small percentage of flights but could push billionaires with cash to spare to invest in clean technologies that are needed for greener ways of flying. Experts say early investments like this would help advance sustainable aviation fuels and electric flights for everybody, scaling them up sooner and bringing costs down faster.

Researchers also stress that the top 1% of earners — and even the top 10% making €37,200 a year — should not limit climate action to what they purchase.

A study published in the journal Nature in 2021 found rich people have a major role in slowing climate change as consumers, investors, role models, organizational participants and citizens. That could mean taking savings out of banks that lend to fossil fuel companies, campaigning for public transport at a local council meeting, or pressuring their company management to replace business flights with virtual meetings.

"If these people in the top tier of society, measured in income and influence, actively went for this, we would see changes happening much quicker than what we see today," said Kristian Nielsen, a climate scientist and lead author of the study. "This is not available to the average person."

But it also works the other way. Some of the world's richest people and companies have poured money into lobbying against policies that threaten fossil fuels. For the richest, said Nazareth from the Stockholm Environment Institute, "a bigger problem is really the way they exert political influence through campaign donations — and influence in general on the lifestyles of everybody else."

Edited by: Jennifer Collins

Read the whole story
acdha
13 days ago
reply
“The top 1% of global earners — somebody earning a yearly salary of about €124,000 ($132,000) — are responsible for one-fifth of the growth in carbon pollution in the last 30 years. They live in cities from Miami to Mumbai.

‘The top 1% use basically a similar amount to the bottom 50% of humanity — and so obviously that, just in terms of scale, is a ridiculous proportion of the carbon budget’”
Washington, DC
sarcozona
22 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories