Does this exclude private jets and helicopters?

I thought the most CO2 was emitted by industrial manufacturing, not private citizens.

Two suggestions:

1. Organize your key to be in order of income bracket, not alphabetical.

2. Overlay total CO2 emissions over the same period for context. (Or better yet use a different visualization like an animated bar chart over time with total contribution per population group.)

3. It’s percent, not per cent.

Also to everyone questioning the validity of the data because it doesn’t fit your world view - go to a different sub. Early Industrial Revolution, the factories covering London and other major cities in pollution were owned by the richest people. As time moves on, CO2 emissions become the Everyman’s contribution via personal vehicles and the like. That’s why total emissions over the same period would add context to this graph.

That said, another possible context could be car ownership per capita.

Gobal - (adj.) of, or pertaining to the gob.

[removed]

That’s what it is

Looking at the years, my first thought driving this is vehicle ownership. In general though I’d guess the relative nature of poverty and the increasing population sizes in the middle brackets worldwide. I really think it’s major problem is not accounting for population size changes or total CO2 output changes.

It also might just be caused by an increase in the number of high-mid income individuals in the planet

The funny part is that you probably classify as a high income class in this graph.. if you are European or American it’s almost guaranteed

A few suggestions:

1. Organize your key to be in order of income bracket, not alphabetical.

2. Overlay total CO2 emissions over the same period for context. Or better yet use a different visualization like an animated bar chart over time showing total contribution per population.

3. It’s percent, not per cent.

Also to everyone questioning the validity of the data because it doesn’t fit your world view - go to a different sub. Early Industrial Revolution, the factories covering London and other major cities in pollution were owned by the richest people. As time moves on, CO2 emissions become the Everyman’s contribution via personal vehicles and the like. That’s why total emissions over the same period would add context to this graph.

That said, another possible context could be car ownership or population size within each subgroup over the same period. Or use per capita info as others have suggested. Overall this chart just doesn’t contain enough data to provide any real insights.

The issue is that this graph might give a wrong idea..

For example, it shows that now in total upper-middle income people consume more CO2 than upper income ones.. but what does that mean?

If there is just 10 guys in the upper group, and 100k in the upper-middle one, is a very different story than if they are the same size

I believe the graph expresses CO2 emissions of each income level as a percentage of the total.

On a global scale it means that more poor people are starting to live in industrialized nations. As opposed to living on a farm without electricity.

It doesn't mean that the rich are producing less CO2. They can be producing more, but a larger part of the total is made by other income levels.

Also, given that the rich can hide their income with tax evading tricks, and that a lot more CO2 is produced by industry than individuals anyway, that whole graph isn't particularly useful.

Maybe it’s because the weather in this area is generally nicer than the rest of the states during the winter?

can OP or anyone who knows please explain how and why this trend is occurring? Specifically I mean the premise that high income emission is plummeting, and middle income is growing quickly? I am going to guess that some of the high income group is faster to get super high efficient houses and appliances, but what about the super fast spending, world travelling, high powered sportscar and yacht owning, large living subset? Also why would middle income be increasing their footprint?

I hate that the key isn't in order. Data not beautiful.

Uhh... Brought to you by High Income Class!

For the ig-nant here, high income means you. "We are the 99% locally but the 1% globally". Widen your perspective.

I guess groups composition change over time (e.g. Argentina in the early 1900 or US/India in late 1700.). The purpose of this chart is to give a very aggregate view.

BTW from 1750 to 1840, 99% of high-income share is Britain.

In a sense, the planet does care about the total emission. Also, very low emissions per capita might be a sign of very low economic activity. Of course, if we want to assess "people behaviour" per capita is the right way, but then we should account for different areas in each country

[removed]

High income on global scale is lower-middle-income in my country. Those guys don’t own companies or Ferraris

Lol it doesn't limit Ceo pay it keeps a ratio. Raising the minimum wage is good until we dont do it for 30 years, and it massively falls behind.

If your company has to rely on keeping its employees in poverty, then it should fail.

Bill gets gets 12$ income per year to avoid income tax, so income is in heneral not representative for all super rich.

What do you mean by adjust it? How much each group contributes to CO2 emissions if they were represented equally in the population? I think this graph is interesting! But imo. you are right, an adjustment like this would be cool to see as a comparison.

Ah yes, so we see that the good(rich) people having less CO2-Emissions, but this greedy middle-Class just dosen´t know when to stop... /s