No.

No way.

The richest 1% generate as much carbon emissions as the poorest two-thirds?

That can't be right! The elites are perfect angels.

So I guess aborting poor minority babies isn't the answer to global warming afterall. That's a relief.

Yet we're still out here trying to push the lower and middle classes to drive EVs, avoid air travel, eat fake meat, and generally be less human. I think maybe it's time we start pushing these ideologies on the rich and allowing the poor to live however they'd like instead of the other way around.

Though something tells me Leonardo DiCaprio will still be on Instagram lecturing us on our carbon footprints while his yacht idles below his feet in utter contradiction to his overall message.

Before I get too off topic, here's what's in the report:

• The richest 1 percent (77 million people) were responsible for 16 percent of global consumption emissions in 2019 — more than all car and road transport emissions. The richest 10 percent accounted for half (50 percent) of emissions.
• It would take about 1,500 years for someone in the bottom 99 percent to produce as much carbon as the richest billionaires do in a year.

But don't worry, the rich people use their jets to meet in Davos every year to solve this problem!

• Every year, the emissions of the richest 1 percent cancel out the carbon savings coming from nearly one million wind turbines.
• Since the 1990s, the richest 1 percent have used up twice as much of the carbon we have left to burn without increasing global temperatures above the safe limit of 1.5°C than the poorest half of humanity.
• The carbon emissions of richest 1 percent are set to be 22 times greater than the level compatible with the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement in 2030.

You guys, I hate to say it, but if we hypothetically assume I'm one of those climate crazies for a moment, I'd like to take this time to mention that it would be time to eat the rich. Not make them pay more, not take away their private jets, but just get rid of them. They're the problem.

Marxism: Isn't it so fluffy?

Getting back to reality, why should we be doing anything to curb our carbon footprint when it's a stone in the Mississippi compared to the pollution the rich are creating? It honestly makes no sense.

Real quick, here's where I absolutely disagree with the climate crazies:

Governments can tackle the twin crises of inequality and climate change by targeting the excessive emissions of the super-rich, and investing in public services and meeting climate goals. Oxfam calculates that a 60 percent tax on the incomes of the richest 1 percent would cut emissions by more than the total emissions of the UK and raise $6.4 trillion a year to pay for the transition away from fossil fuels to renewable energy.

Simply taking their money is not going to solve anything. The money will just find its way right back into their pockets via the revolving door of business and government. I do think luxury taxes in the form of, say a ridiculous sales tax on yachts or private jets, could be worth trying. Plenty of other unnecessary items could be taxed in this way as well. Again, you've got that revolving door, so ...

Yet since our world is run by the 1%, all we're likely to see out of this is maybe a gas tax or a heating tax — something that affects all of us "equally."

Either way, the masses are already on fire, so don't be surprised if you see this report weaponized by the climate crazies and Marxists.

P.S. Now check out our latest video 👇