4 ms·
> It's true that the rich emits more, it's true that the rich can adapt more easily, but in the end, the rich will also lose income because of a carbon tax. I'm
by drclau 5y ago
> It's true that the rich emits more, it's true that the rich can adapt more easily, but in the end, the rich will also lose income because of a carbon tax. I'm not sure that "carbon inequality" is very high (even though air travel seems to really increase that carbon inequality).
Can you elaborate on this, and in particular on "rich emits more"? Do you mean per individual? If so, that may be the case, but absolute numbers matter more in this problem. The inequality is a social problem. Climate change does not care if the CO2 came from rich or from poor. I'm by no means trying to excuse the rich. What I'm saying is we should be careful to not distract ourselves from solving the actual problem here.
- perfunctory 5y ago> but absolute numbers matter more in this problem Indeed. And "World's richest 1% cause double CO2 emissions of poorest 50%, says Oxfam" [0] It's not double per person. It's the total. So focusing on the rich is definitely not distracting from the actual problem. It is the actual problem. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/21/worlds-richest-1-cause-double-co2-emissions-of-poorest-50-says-oxfam https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/21/worlds-r...
- jokoon 5y ago> Do you mean per individual? Yes, per individual. The rich are housed in larger homes, travel more, consume more. Of course it's a generalization of, let's say, the richer 5% or 10%, so of course it's not always true. But there is a good correlation between consumption dollars and emitted CO2.