Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

invisible-nuke t1_j5sybid wrote

Quite a bad graph without any knowledge of how these groups are divided and how these change over the years. There are just less ultra-rich than upper-class.

163

jaromir39 t1_j5t7pvt wrote

I agree. There should be a flair called dataisugly for submissions like this.

11

albymana OP t1_j5t17j7 wrote

I guess groups composition change over time (e.g. Argentina in the early 1900 or US/India in late 1700.). The purpose of this chart is to give a very aggregate view.

BTW from 1750 to 1840, 99% of high-income share is Britain.

10

meeeeeph t1_j5t9jvq wrote

99% of emissions? Because they were the fist to industrialize?

12

BIG_DECK_ENERGY t1_j5ta1ir wrote

Pretty sure that's the implication.

11

meeeeeph t1_j5tab46 wrote

Yes it seems, but still not very clear...

Britain didn't have 99% of the world wealth/high income people, but produced 99% of it's emissions... So the graph by income is irrelevant?

9

InfiniteDuckling t1_j5uec03 wrote

It's a bad implication though.

Wood burning causes CO2. As does burning coal, which occurred in individual homes, not just factories. Low income people had access to fires long before industrialization. Obviously that's not reflected in the graph - likely because it's hard to track that - so the data is suspect.

9

PurpleCounter1358 t1_j5xamfx wrote

No, wood burning only releases the CO2 that the tree absorbed from the air during its lifetime, which was mostly going back into the air anyway if it rots. It's the carbon cycle, whereas if you dig up coal that's carbon captured by plants that got buried long ago, so it adds to the carbon in the atmosphere now. If you want trees to sequester more carbon you can cut them down and build stuff that will last a long time, and that leaves room for a new tree and carbon stored in a useful form.

1