I'm confused about why this is unexpected or controversial.<p>The point of money is to be able to buy, rent, or experience things. Virtually all things that can be bought, rented, or experienced require energy as input. Usually, the nicer, more prestigious, and more expensive the thing, the more energy. So saying that "rich households emit much more carbon than poor ones" is largely synonymous with saying that "rich households spend much more money than poor ones" which is largely synonymous with "rich households are much richer than poor ones".<p>Water is wet, sky is blue.
When the title of a study starts with "Super-rich", you can bet dollars to donuts that it does not end in "do some nice thing".<p>"Study" shows the super-rich do something. If I can posit my own hypotheses, I can show anything.<p>Of course, if they hear that Bill Gates buys carbon offsets for everything he does, another "study" will show that carbon offsets are just whitewashing.
Reminded me of when I found out Al Gore spent $30K a year on utilities. Not posting to call out hypocrisy, but posting to show how the rich are different from you and me.<p><a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/story?id=2906888&page=1" rel="nofollow">https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/story?id=29068...</a>
> we tend to underestimate the extent of area-based comparisons compared to length-based ones. so the disparity is even larger than our brains perceive from this figure. but I couldn't find a way to fit a line 2,000 times longer than another in the same image!<p>Psst, somebody tell twitter about log-log scaling. I can't be arsed to make an account.
Well yeah. I'm in favour of a CO2 budget but for obvious reasons the rich prefer to lecture the poors rather than cut down on their own city trips.