Sustainability Corner: Who is truly ruining the atmosphere?
Earth Day has come and gone, and many on campus are thinking about ways to make themselves and their respective greenspaces more eco-friendly and anti-omission in the hopes of lowering their carbon footprint. What the masses don’t know is that these sustainable steps have only a minimal effect on the overall system.
In an article published in November 2023, Oxfam—a United Kingdom-based company trying to “help create lasting solutions to the injustice of poverty”—found that the “richest 1% of humanity is responsible for more carbon emissions than the poorest 66%, with dire consequences for vulnerable communities and global efforts to tackle the climate emergency.”
This article goes on to find that “the wealthiest 1% tend to live climate-insulated, air-conditioned lives; their emissions—5.9 – 5.9bn tonnes of CO2 in 2019 – are responsible for immense suffering…the report calculates that the emissions from the 1% alone would be enough to cause the heat-related deaths of 1.3 million people over the coming decades.” Not only this, but they concluded these findings with an indicting but necessary statement that “We are not equally to blame for rising temperatures, and recognizing that is an important step in identifying possible solutions.”
Though something like this may seem to many like a given, the validity of this claim shouldn’t be overlooked; voices and necessities are actively being ignored due to greed-induced negligence. As it stands, “Twelve billionaires’ climate emissions out-pollute 2.1 [million] homes…,” and there hasn’t been enough done to mitigate their influence. Numerous wealthy individuals indulge in excessive flights and private jets or upkeep the daily living experience through unsustainable means. Those who experience the undiluted force of these actions are those entirely detached from the situation—typically in impoverished areas of the globe.
For example, famous pop artist Taylor Swift’s 2023 flight logs have caused controversy across social media. These logs show that the artist undertook copious amounts of what seemed, at times, unnecessary air travel. These findings indicated that the artist used their two private jets over 170 times in one year, omitting 1200 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere—releasing “83 times [the amount of CO2 that] the average American” omits throughout their whole life. Also, “in 2022, when Swift was not on tour, she racked up…170 flights between January and July of that year…with her total emissions amounting to 1,185 times more than the average person’s total annual emissions.” The only reaction Swift and their legal team have broadcast is a cease-and-desist letter sent to the accumulator of this information, alongside claims of stalking public flight logs.
The potential ecological backlash of such heinous emissions is unfounded, and the impacts can be detrimental going forward, yet many refuse to indict individuals like Swift for their overindulgent, unsustainable ways solely because of the “personal” connection they share with the creator. Though individuals like Swift are not the sole proprietors or contributors to this issue, they are a fraction of a whole—which the average individual makes up a microscopic percentage of—and should be recognized for being a part of the problem.
This is not to say that individuals should give up on sustainable ways, however, the burden should not fall on one individual’s shoulders. For change to occur, it needs to begin with those who have the most power and influence. Employed restrictions have other benefits besides just reducing our respective carbon footprints (i.e., removing excess litter, promoting reusability, and straying away from the ecologically harmful) and are critical to implement heavier reductions for those who act irresponsibly.
It will be important to keep ideas like this in mind going forward. Know who to look to for change: those who use their wealth for self-indulgent purposes. Stay alert and informed, as always!
Thumbnail photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons