3 ms·
I could see an argument for trying to impose a per-population cap (it’s our shared world so we should share the capacity to do damage to it equally). Or an atte
by bee_rider 1y ago
I could see an argument for trying to impose a per-population cap (it’s our shared world so we should share the capacity to do damage to it equally). Or an attempt to use the market to figure out the best expenditure of emissions for economic activity; some kind of carbon tax and credit scheme.
But, by whatever metric we want to use, India is with their huge population is going to end up with a lot of it. Unless is it some sort of per-country cap, which would be totally unfair, right?
- inexcf 1y agoSo you suggest western countries should get birthrates up and that will fix climate change by offsetting the main producers in the country? How is per capita relevant.
- bee_rider 1y agoNo, I think it would be most fair to split the remaining carbon budget (to the extent that there even is one) evenly, or maybe try and account for the fact that regions that have been industrialized for a long time have already used up a lot of the cap. However, I think the fair plan is impractical and would meet a lot of resistance from major economies. So, out of pragmatism I prefer a carbon credit system.
- tzs 1y agoPer capita is relevant because the atmosphere doesn't care about arbitrary political boundaries that humans draw on the map. A ton of emitted CO2 does the same amount of harm no matter what person's activities cause it (directly or indirectly).