2 ms·

I don't think this is true, unless when you say "the rich" you mean "90% of the population of the West". Resource consumption happens by a person. There's only

I don't think this is true, unless when you say "the rich" you mean "90% of the population of the West". Resource consumption happens by a person. There's only so many resources a person will use while being rich. A rich person might consume far more resources than a poor person, but rich people collectively have a much smaller impact than the poor, because there are far fewer of them. This means that if you start tackling climate change and the impact is that food becomes more expensive, then poor people will be far more affected by this than rich people.

ximeng 7y ago
I think this probably needs a proper analysis either way, but Oxfam (I realise not a source everyone agrees with) claims 50% of emissions come from the top 10% (this wouldn't just be the "West" - Middle East oil states, rich Asian countries, and rich people worldwide generally all contribute and some in the West probably maintain relatively low carbon lifestyles). https://theconversation.com/emissions-inequality-there-is-a-gulf-between-global-rich-and-poor-113804 https://theconversation.com/emissions-inequality-there-is-a-... has the Oxfam discussion. There would be an impact on poor people as you say, but this depends on the exact policies adopted. A study such as the one summarised and linked here: http://bruegel.org/2018/11/distributional-effects-of-climate-policies/ http://bruegel.org/2018/11/distributional-effects-of-climate... would be needed to confirm either way - their conclusion is that climate change mitigation efforts are potentially but not necessarily regressive with respect to wealth distribution.