• ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Your argument is that people who make enough money that they don’t have to spend all their money… Spend their money less than those who do spend all their money.

    • MangoCats@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      19 hours ago

      I was going more for the absurdity of a single person emitting more CO2 than a township of 150,000 people, plus the underutilization / hoarding of this imaginary construct: money by the people who have more than they need - as you allude to.

      I also agree: the price of things does frequently correlate with CO2 emitted. Even when you hire someone for a service that emits virtually no CO2, what do they do with that money? Turn around and spend it on things that do emit CO2. Much of the cost of goods has to do with the cost of the energy required to produce and deliver the good (again cost correlating with CO2 emissions).

      The only “industry” I can think of that moves significant money around without generating CO2 directly is finance, though when the money quits running through finance’s internal spin-cycle and finally hits the real world, it’s again purchasing the relase of CO2.