"would we feel better if pollution was distributed more evenly?"

The probably false hope is if the harm from pollution was distributed back to those who created it more evenly, the richest 1% would be causing less harm from pollution.

This is all about privatizing the gains and socializing the losses. Which is what normally happens. Climate is no exception, and perhaps a notably egregious example.

Is this a weird way of pointing out they own factories?
#1 | POSTED BY TOR

Isn't it weird to own the factories but not the pollution?

If I eat a candy bar and throw the wrapper out my car window, that's littering. Why isn't the stuff coming out of the tailpipe also pollution. And all the microplastics coming off the tires too.

"No one's paying you to litter candy wrappers."

Lots of people get paid to drive.

"Are you really going to attempt to defend the wealthy on this?"

That's what he does. It's a knee-jerk response. Don't think about it too much; he didn't.

"The most comprehensive study of global climate inequality ever undertaken shows that this elite group, made up of 77 million people including billionaires, millionaires and those paid more than US$140,000 (112,500) a year"

A bit of a mixed message, as millionaire and billionaire refers to wealth, but paid more than $140k refers to income.

"People buy what the factories produce and those are likely the source of most of the pollution. I'd like to see green factories or at least ones with a reduced carbon footprint."

The fact that you don't have that option as a consumer undermines the claim that you as the consumer are the cause of the pollution.

You'd like to see green factories or at least ones with a reduced carbon footprint.

Why didn't your spending build them?

"To be in the global 1%, all you need is a 60k after taxes and no kids."

No kids, that's gonna rule out a lot of people.

In the article it's 77 million people. Maybe half of them would be Americans. Roughly one in ten Americans.