4 ms·
While I agree, large population densities happen due to poverty, the more poor people get, the more children they'll have. Western countries have lower populat
by bad_user 6y ago
While I agree, large population densities happen due to poverty, the more poor people get, the more children they'll have.
Western countries have lower population densities than many Asian countries. On one hand these are richer countries that maybe could afford the bill.
On the other hand this is also a tax for having a lower birth rate that could have unintended consequences. Like raising poverty levels, or pro-imigration or pro-child policies. With enough economic incentive to grow the population, the population will be grown via government policies, exactly what happened in many countries post WW2.
The other issue I'm seeing is that developed countries export a lot of goods and services, being efficient at it. Just as an example, agriculture in Holland is extremely efficient. Raising prices in Holland due to CO₂ emissions will move some of that production locally elsewhere in the EU, possibly yielding greater CO₂ emissions overall. This may be good for local farmers, I'm all for eating produce grown locally, but not necessarily for the environment.
Basically some countries are exporting much of their pollution and by imposing limits per country some of that pollution might get worse when moved locally.
I agree that "per capita" is probably the best we have, it's unfair to impose harsher restrictions on developing countries, given that developed countries yielded much worse emissions in the 20th century. Since 1960 we've had great progress in eliminating extreme poverty across the world. If that progress continues, we can expect a flattening population level, which is already happening.
But in calculating allowed emissions per country, it isn't so clear cut and I hope all variables are taken into consideration.
- JoeAltmaier 6y agoPoverty == children was true back in the 50's, but not so much any more. https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth#how-has-the-world-population-growth-rate-changed https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth#how-has-t...
- bad_user 6y agoNot sure what you're trying to say. Both population growth and poverty have been plummeting since ~1960.
- JoeAltmaier 6y agoMost countries have reached, or are reaching, < replacement population growth. So the poverty link seems to be dissolved.
- s1artibartfast 6y agoHow does that imply the link is dissolved? the decline of children mirrors the decline in poverty for the last 50 years and at record lows. If you look at countries, there are many differences, but high or low poverty, the correlation persists.
- JoeAltmaier 6y agoEverybody is at or approaching <2 children - under replacement. Everybody (but one or two outliers). Yet poverty is all over the map. So, what correlation?
- s1artibartfast 6y agohttps://www.stlouisfed.org/~/media/blog/2016/december/blogimage_fertilityincome_121216.jpg?la=en https://www.stlouisfed.org/~/media/blog/2016/december/blogim...
- bad_user 6y agoIn the 19th century over 90% of the world population lived in poverty and over 80% lived in extreme poverty. World population living in extreme poverty went down to 55% in 1950 and then plummeted to under 10% in 2015. I recommend this book: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34890015-factfulness https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34890015-factfulness
- CuriousSkeptic 6y agoWhy calculate per country at all? A global carbon tax/market wouldn’t need regional differences and would allow the market to optimize allocation between borders freely.