Their methodology is extremely suspect in my opinion, as they attribute "shareholder emissions" to anyone that owns 10% or more of a company. Direct quote from their doc:

> a person with a 20% share in a company has 20% of its emissions allocated to their shareholder emissions

While shareholders obviously hold a greater degree of control over a company's emissions than a random consumer, assigning 100% of the blame for oil company emissions to the owners and 0% to people buying oil seems insane.

Also, filtering only for owners that control a 10% or higher stake masively skews the results as large portions of companies are held by the general public in much smaller quantities via 401ks, pensions, etc.

> While shareholders obviously hold a greater degree of control over a company's emissions than a random consumer, assigning 100% of the blame for oil company emissions to the owners and 0% to people buying oil seems insane.

But what’s the appropriate allocation? I don’t think it’s zero. It shouldn’t be a larger percentage than their shareholding.

There are other examples. Eg someone who manufactures or sells dangerous items. Drugs, alcohol, guns.

They have some degree of liability in many jurisdictions. They aren't entirely responsible for what their products do. But are they zero percent responsible?

If they take both supply chains of consumption and ownership into account, they are straight-up double-counting, unless they are separating opex and capex or something.

> assigning 100% of the blame for oil company emissions to the owners and 0% to people buying oil seems insane.

You can assign it any way you want; blame is largely useless. But you can regulate the behavior of the owners. You cannot (effectively) regulate the behavior of consumers.

> large portions of companies are held by the general public in much smaller quantities via 401ks, pensions, etc.

Considering everyone is in index (or mutual) funds these days, do they actually own any shares in the underlying companies? I’m not sure they do? The fund surely owns shares of various companies, but the holders of the fund aren’t shareholders in the underlying companies.

Perhaps this is a silly point to make, but the fund providers will show up as 10% owners if the general public has any significant stake in these companies.

This is mostly a distraction because so much Carbon pollution is within supply chains, and therefore not wise to ascribe to individual consumers.

The exceptions are driving and flying. 8M is more than the private jet users, I assume. Getting rid of ICE driving is going very well (outside fossil-Luddite America).

Getting rid of flying is harder, but I fully support a rail bridge across the Bearing Strait. I'll take long sleeper trains working remote before I get to my old world vacation proper. This is good for circadian rhythm too.

Unhinged to think the bulk of the population can work remote on train rides with 0 demand. Dropping you from one frozen wasteland to another is not desirable.

Have you been to Siberia or Alaska? If you're not flying you're going to have a LONG drive once you get to either side.

They didn’t say replacing 100% of flights or drives with trains, but the vast majority of trips people take would be popular enough to sustain regular service for those people.

You don’t have to ban a thing for 100% of cases, there will always be outliers. My wife and I love driving deep into the wilderness. But still the vast majority of our travel is routes with heavy traffic, let’s replace those trips

Less than 1% of the top 0.1% own a private jet. There are roughly 25,000 private jets in the world, but over 8 million people in the global top 0.1%.

You "only" need ~$7 million to crack the global 0.1%. By income it's around $600k/year. That's nowhere close to private jet money.

Virtually no-one owns a private jet because it just doesn't make sense to do so unless you basically live in one. A lot more people timeshare/charter one. Which I am perfectly fine with. People need to go places, and public air travel has been made consistently unpleasant, regardless of the flight class.

Inequality breaks capitalism. Spending so much money as the 0.1% spends in luxury makes no sense. To let millions die of preventable diseases, or even hunger makes no sense. The fact that as a society we let them do that is a failure that needs to be corrected.

It is not their money. It is our resources that they are wasting. We need to better provide for our fellow humans even if that costs the rich a percentage of their luxuries.

And let's not forget about the top 0.01%. The smaller the percentage, the more depraved the rich are, and the more they use their money to influence politics and increase poverty and suffering.

Actually with Carbon inequality, the problem is that driving and flying is not expensive enough!