Luxury: the true cause of global heating

We've been framed (meta-pun intended).

Ok: you know the ol’ ‘personal emissions vs systems change’ debate. We waffle back and forth. Both are kinda true. Let’s leave that aside for a minute.

We’re told climate change is caused by certain gases that trap heat. Also true! But a bit distracting… Pointing to these gases is like attributing a drunk driving crash to neurotransmitter interference from alcohol. (alcohol interferes with neurotransmitters, causing delayed reaction and clumsiness). It’s a true statement, but it doesn’t put the cause at the level of behaviour. (Interesting to look at progress on drinking and driving and how that happened… another article for another time).

This is sometimes called ‘framing’. Climate change is framed in ways that often omit the role of luxury consumption and power (AKA: rich people but not quite all rich people).

Our frame is broken.

Consumption in the general sense is often in the frame — drive less, bus more, ride a bike, buy local etc. All good things. But we seldom hear about private jets, luxury SUVs and multiple homes.

We need to radically shift this framing.

Maybe this is obvious, but I propose that climate change is entirely caused by luxury emissions and the behaviours that come along with luxury-seeking.

Strong claim, I know. I’m not sure myself. Let’s examine.

Kevin Anderson is a smart climate researcher. He’s well respected. He said that we can eliminate about 1/3 of global emissions just by bringing the pollution-levels of the super-emitters (~ wealthiest 10%) down to the level of the ‘average european’ (read about it here).

This is huge — we can massively decrease emissions without any real hardship at all. The lives saved and suffering avoided would be massive. And it would be so (technically) easy.

I think the fact that these emissions are not necessary for a good and decent life makes them (…dare I say it…) immoral. Emissions kill and impoverish people, but not all emissions equally.

The amount of money we’ve spent trying to capture and sequester carbon is massive and we’ve not really acieved that much (we’re no long increasing emissions rates each year?) . We also seem to have a lot of effort at reducing car trips, increasing bikes, vegetarian Mondays… and we need those. In some sectors, emissions have fallen while overall they’ve gone up, globally. But with sufficient moral clarity, we could cut 1/3 of emissions without spending a dime, basically overnight.

Consider how much money could start flowing into clean energy and transportation technology… Banning immoral emissions would also accelerate the development of clean technologies..

Had we taken the climate crisis seriously in the 1990s and reduced luxury emissions, we would have gained critical time. We would’ve had more than a decade longer before reaching the pollution concentration and subsequent warming and impact levels that we find ourselves in today.

And what about the other 2/3 of emissions? Would it be fair to put some of those on the shoulders of luxury-seekers? I think so.

Fossil fuel corps were leaders in climate science in the 80s. Then they started lying and funding disinformation — all to keep their hands on epic profits. Here I’m thinking about regular folk who ‘need’ to get to work and they ‘need’ a car to do that. Well, if it weren’t for the rich trying to get richer for a little longer (to keep luxury increasing), then we could’ve just gotten down to business and figured out public transit and clean mobility 30 years ago (we know now it’s cheaper, healthier, etc anyway).

(Ok, here I’m guessing they want the profits for the luxury. Or the status that comes with luxury… but now that it’s coming out, it could be the power. Or the combination of all of the above, a power-luxury-status complex. Let me know what you think in the comments. )

Furthermore, the economists (high priests of luxury-worshipping cult) helped the world be supremely confused about the tradeoffs between climate action and inaction. https://carbontracker.org/the-climate-risk-delusion-under-pricing-climate-risk-contributes-to-climate-change-itself-and-puts-global-pension-wealth-in-peril/

And those who’ve managed to get the luxury want to keep it, and have the money to get the power to shape the narrative and keep us from taking action this whole damn time… So that’s why I think we can lay it all at their feet. The emissions, delay in action, and disinformation are mostly the fault of luxury-sucking leeches.

(I’m sorry if you’re a luxury-sucker and reading this, I wish you the best with your recovery. I’m here, if you want to talk. #toughlove)

When we do come across the frame of luxury emissions, we sometimes see it stated more as ‘wealthy emissions’ or ‘pollution of the rich’ — putting the label at income or asset-owning. This is reasonable, and I do this, but I would like to make some space for folks who, through no fault of their own, have wound up rich and would like to be decent moral people. I consider myself among this group, in a sense. I support healthy wealth! And so I would rather pin the problem on the behaviours themselves and not the numbers in the bank account. (#healthywealth? this guy Eric built a super cool research institution, it is probably cool. Imagine if we bestowed status on people for really good stuff? We do a bit… and there’s backfire. Think Greta, think Bill Gates.)

There is great strategic potential in behaviour change by focusing on behaviours instead of wealth.

I don’t think we need any extra enemies. Being smart about our target could help bring some more allies on board (wealthy folks who aren’t addicted to luxury). And it gives folks a chance to change and adapt to the new moral landscape. It’s not fair to change the rules of acceptance without warning and make the condemnation permanent and attached at the soul-level. I continue to see everyone as human beings deserving of respect, especially as long as they haven’t been told what is expected of them by their community.

Luxury consumption is deeply tied to status seeking. Status is a powerful driver of behaviour. If we can do an Indiana-Jones replacement of the status-object, then we can make some progress. Instead of fancy cars and giant houses and armies of gardeners cooks cleaners etc, folks-with-means could have research-advocacy teams who generate new and useful knowledge and organize the resistance for a liveable planet while taking care of community needs. They could give back money that they acquired in part due to the original theft of land and bodies.

I’m all for respecting folks of all wealth-levels who make a meaningful effort at this, it doesn’t even have to be perfect.

Our failure to include the problem of luxury in the frame has contributed to the right-wing backlash against climate action. Is it not fair to be pissed off about what you’re being asked to give up when some asshole is flaunting excessive emissions? One legit response is to fight to get luxury emissions included in restrictions first and hardest. The other is to question and reject the entire premise as a climate scam. Let’s help people choose the former.

Of course, some climate activists are on it.

But climate-progressive governments have been slow to take the message on board. Even though we’ve managed to get a lot of money out of politics, governments still have to weigh the influences on them. They prefer to pick and choose which climate initiatives to implement. The results so far have been… often ‘bad and wrong’, some ‘good idea but not boldly executed’, and a bit of ‘it could’ve been worse’.

…

So, what are we even talking about here with luxury emissions?

Consider the word luxury (I pasted in the etymology of Luxury earlier next to the capuccino). Why did the word lose its pejorative meaning starting in the 17th and 18th century? Was luxury being expanded to more people, and so seemed less outrageous? Was religious restraint weakening?

I’ve similarly pondered the flip of the word ‘decadent’. Originally used to describe something that embodies the decline of the times (decay), but now commonly used to refer to the very best and most delicious things (as valued by western civilization).

The desires of the average-level western consumer are generally aiming for more. And if left unrestrained by finances, does often wind up in extreme luxury terrain. This could be partly why efforts to rein in excess haven’t gotten a foothold in the mainstream consciousness.

I was at a big union meeting with some hundreds of union hardcores and in the main ‘motivating’ speech we were reminded of why we’re all here fighting for worker’s rights: because union workers get to ride cruises when they retire and non-unionized workers are poor and cold when they retire (no matching outfits).

I know a small family that scored an affordable living situation in a very expensive city. Rent was about 1/3 of market value. As soon as this savings translated to space in the monthly family budget, this family bought a summer home. Core values and expectations matter and if we don’t get them aligned right, then we won’t win. If we don’t set aim at the right goal, then we’ll miss despite all our trying.

And this is why I think it’s important to try to get to the roots of things — we can’t solve the biggest chunks of emissions if most people are secretly hoping they’ll get their piece of it or afraid they’ll lose what little they have.

……………………………

So, to wrap this up…

There are many counter-arguments for sure. I hope I get some in the comments.

In the end, addressing climate change means reframing the conversation to focus on those with the greatest capacity—and responsibility—to act. Luxury emissions aren't just an environmental issue; they're a moral one. By tackling these excesses first, we not only reduce a significant portion of global emissions but also signal a societal shift toward fairness and accountability. The path forward must involve not just technical solutions, but a cultural redefinition of success, wealth, and status—where sustainability and communal responsibility become the new measures of prestige. If we are serious about climate justice, we must confront the problem of luxury head-on and build a future where a livable planet isn’t a luxury reserved for the few.

I hope we can, together, generate some energy around limiting the power and pollution of those among us who are proud to display their immoral emissions. I hope we can use this approach to make ammends with the parts of the working class who feel harmed by climate action and we can start to build solidarity.

Get in touch with me if you want to workshop this and take action.