Please don't take HN threads further into ideological flamewar.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Oxfam says that the 10% richest account for 50% of air pollution. People that have enough money to travel by plane should have enough money to not destroy our environment.

If the source you're citing is Oxfam's report on Extreme Carbon Inequality[1][2], which was widely reported as saying that the world's richest 10% produce half of global carbon emissions, that is incorrect. If you read the PDF, they're only looking at estimates of "lifestyle consumption emissions", not total emissions. From the PDF:

> Emissions associated with consumption by governments, capital and international transport are therefore excluded. The proportion of total consumption emissions attributed to the lifestyle consumption of individuals varies by country, but globally accounts for around 64% of the total.

> Oxfam’s estimates should only be considered indicative of the orders of magnitude, but also as conservative...

The report also says that women are hit harder by climate change than men and disparages "carbon baron billionaires". Petroleum companies aren't growing faster than the rest of the economy, so it's unclear what argument they're actually making.

Such blatant misrepresentation and pandering caused me to lose trust in Oxfam.

1. https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/mb-ex...

2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19995922

Thanks for linking the PDF, which says this:

> Around 50% of these emissions meanwhile can be attributed to the 10% richest of people around the world, who have average carbon footprints 11 times as high as the poorest half of the population, and 60 times as high as the poorest 10%. The average footprint of the richest 1% of people globally could be 175 times that of the poorest 10%.

Again, that's "lifestyle consumption emissions", not total emissions. The poorest 10% make less than $2 per day. Of course they're going to be a rounding error in terms of "lifestyle consumption emissions". And before you get upset about super wealthy people burning lots of fossil fuels, remember that to be in the richest 10%, you only need to have an income above $16k/year.[1] If you make more than $100k/year, you are in the top 0.1%.[2]

1. https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/get-involved/how-rich-am-i/?...

2. https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/get-involved/how-rich-am-i/?...

They also account for a disproportional share of taxes. For example in Israel the richest 20% percent pay 80% of taxes (If I remember correctly)

But they don't get rich without the labour of the other 80%.

They get rich because they provide value for the people. The more value they prove the richer they get.

Hah, no. They get rich, because the more wealth you have, the easier it is to increase it. Why? Because this is how the rich and powerful have set up the rules of the game.

Personal wealth does not correlate with any sort of "value" you have personally created.

> They get rich, because the more wealth you have, the easier it is to increase it.

The more wealth you have the easier it is to provide value to other people. That's known as capital investment, and it's how wealth begets more wealth.

Or they could just spend all that wealth they've saved on themselves. People inclined to do that generally don't become wealthy in the first place, however, barring abnormal circumstances such as winning the lottery. A habit of frivolous, conspicuous consumption is a good way to ensure that you don't stay wealthy for long.

Do you have a working definition of fascism here or are you using it as something closer to "a bad politics thing"?

From Wikipedia: «Fascism ... characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy».

There are people who see the enforcement of the green agenda in these terms, like this: you can't speak publicly against it, you can't act openly against it, and it gets forced on the economy through the power of the state.

I personally think that such a view is a bit of a exaggeration. But we should remember that the danger of fascism is always around the corner, in the groupthink and in the enforcement of One True Way in anything.

>>"[..]you can't speak publicly against it, you can't act openly against it,[..]"

By this, I suppose you mean that, if you do it, you will get some angry answers in your direction, but, is that not true about anything deserving to talk about?

It works in the other direction too: I have heard pretty harsh insults against ecologist (yeah, sometimes they are even called fascists).

>>"[..] and it gets forced on the economy through the power of she state."

Yes, but all economic organization is forced through the power of the state, starting by property rights. So, nothing new there.

I'm mostly talking about a PR suicide that is speaking against beliefs of majority, or even a vocal minority. This has real economic consequences, so it makes businesses stay in line with the accepted beliefs by talking the only language that matters to them.

Yes, a state is an instiute of enforcement, violent if needed. Nothing new here indeed. People just tend to see enforcement of ideas they like as good, and of the ideas they don't like, as evil. Nothing new here either.

I just tried to explain the train of thought that may have led to the original (flagged) comment.

That seems to be all it means these days.

Okay, but how does that relate to fascism? Really, you'd expect fascists to advocate the opposite actions, because of the strong nationalist component of fascism- wouldn't they tend to favor actions that benefit France and disregard global externalities?

Please, allow me to ask you, how this bold statement contributes to this conversation?

It provide a different worldview through which to look at and analyze this tax.

Nice bingo: * ecofascism, leftist, propaganda. * account created a few minutes ago.