The worlds poorest use far less energy than the worlds wealthiest. If we want a world where the worlds poorest can rise, energy policy needs to be softer on the poor, and the richest will have to pay more of the cost. The rich countries rose to the top on the back of historically cheap energy, to some extent.

"The average US citizen still consumes more than ten times the energy of the average Indian, 4-5 times that of a Brazilian, and three times more than China"

https://ourworldindata.org/energy-access#per-capita-energy-c...

You know what will impact the poor a lot more than it will impact rich people? In the form of crop failures, desertification, water scarcity, land degradation etc…?

Climate change.

Of course individually they consume less, when talking about the mass and big numbers, ultra wealthy are a statistical anomaly.

Most of the poor energy footprint is not optional: commuting (most can't live in expensive districts), heating a single small apartment, basic food, buy a few leisure things.

Almost all the wealthy footprint is discretionary: air travel, luxury purchase, package holidays... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-020-0579-8

Your "statistical anomaly" is not anecdotal, it's the very symbol of a broken system that was designed not to care.

In this situation, I cannot expect the non-wealthy to make big efforts to reduce their consumption while the ultra rich continues to casually destroy the environment. We're letting the rich take almost all the profit but we ask the poor to work harder only because they're more numerous. This can only end with violence or a catastrophe, IMHO.

Right, but then what are options? Everything hits the poor I agree but if you don't want to then we will just let the global warming to run rampant and watch?

Ultra wealthy aside, this is about comparing the world's wealthiest economies to the world's poorest. There's a 10:1 ratio of energy usage in USA vs India for example (per capita).

So they should market those measures for what they really are, i.e. regressive taxes/measures that, by definition, have a bigger impact on the poor than on the wealthy. The “let’s save the planet!” discourse controlled by the wealthy fails to mention that (with few exceptions, lately).

The poor, in democracy, will vote for their interests. So, unless you abandon democracy, you won't get the poor to vote carbon taxes.

How about we start by putting a $1000/flight tax? Seems only fair that the rich, mobile class start reducing their emissions. After all, it's actually the upper classes that consume (by far) energy in gross terms.

This just punishes those with family abroad and reduces economic mobility.

It'd be hard to tax private jets, so much like the EU has just done with fuel duty, they end up exempting the super-rich and hammering the working class with more taxes.

It’s actually more efficient for a person to fly 400mi in a reasonably full plain than it is to drive solo in an average American car