Inequality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

2018 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Stephan Klasen

Global inequality has been falling in the last 20 or 30 years, mainly because of rising incomes in China, India, and, more recently, also in Africa. That has been good for global justice and poverty reduction, but not for greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, the majority of growth in emissions since 1990 has taken place in emerging countries. As a result, if global inequality continues to fall, we have to confront the fact that greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise. There is no easy solution to this problem, since it is very difficult for emerging countries to drastically change their emission pathways. But there are some policies that might help, including, for example, the removal of energy subsidies and a greater focus on air pollution and energy security, both of which are co-benefits of moving away from fossil energy. The question also remains whether more unequal countries emit more or less greenhouse gases. Theoretical arguments in this regard are ambiguous. We find that in poorer countries, higher inequality actually reduces per capita emissions, mainly because it pushes poor people out of the carbon economy and forces them to lead carbon-neutral lives, relying entirely on biomass. However, in richer countries, inequality is associated with rising emissions. Therefore, if we reduce inequality in rich countries, we will also help reduce emissions. But how to think about climate policy? Economists have very much focused on the idea that there is a first best climate policy with a global carbon price, achieved either through an emission trading scheme or a carbon tax. But one should realize that climate policy in practice involves many different initiatives at many different levels. The driving forces of such policies are often the co-benefits such as cleaner air or greater energy security than emission reduction. If we recognize this, then our analysis should focus not on trying to design first best, but unrealistic policies, but rather on studying the interactions between existing policies and on trying to improve their functioning. This will be a much more promising way to tackle climate change than focusing on an unrealistic first best option.

2011 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 1270-1277 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas O. Wilson ◽  
Frederick M. McNeal ◽  
Sabrina Spatari ◽  
David G. Abler ◽  
Paul R. Adler

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonia Schuster ◽  
Ilona M. Otto

<p>The Earth’s population of seven billion consume varying amounts of planetary resources with varying impacts on the environment.  We combine the analytical tools offered by the socio-ecological metabolism and class theory and propose a novel social stratification theory to identify the differences and hot spots in individual resource and energy use. The theory is applied to German society and we use per capita greenhouse gas emissions as a proxy for resource and energy use. We use socio-metabolic profiles of individuals from an economic, social and cultural perspective to investigate resource intensive lifestyles. The results show large disparities and inequalities in emission patterns in German society. For example, the greenhouse gas emissions in the lowest and highest emission classes can differ by a magnitude of ten. Income, education, age, gender and regional differences (FRG vs. GDR) result in distinct emission profiles. Class differentiation is also noted as economic, cultural and social factors influence individual carbon footprints. We also analyze the role of digital technologies, regarding resource and energy consumption, as a proxy for cultural capital. Highlighting inequalities within societies is a step towards downscaling carbon emission reduction targets that are key to avoid transgressing climate change planetary boundary. We discuss the results in the context of climate policy implications as well as behavioral changes that are needed to meet climate policy objectives.</p>


Author(s):  
Hewitt Crane ◽  
Edwin Kinderman ◽  
Ripudaman Malhotra

Of the various alternatives to fossil energy, nuclear power is the most advanced and the best positioned to become a major source of energy. It is also essentially free of CO2 emissions, and if reducing greenhouse gas emissions is truly the highest concern, then we will have to develop nuclear power. Yet developing nuclear power would also pose challenges in terms of waste disposal, and proliferation of nuclear weapons including the risk of a terrorist organization acquiring such weapons. To some environmentalists nuclear power presents a serious, dilemma. Support or opposition to nuclear power is strongly affected by value judgments as well as lack of disseminated information on questions: What happens if there is leakage of nuclear waste someday? To what extent would people and the world be affected? Would we be trading international security for energy security—does nuclear power increase our vulnerability to terrorist attacks? The mixture of clear benefits with outstanding questions currently allows some nations to embrace nuclear power, some to accept it grudgingly, and still others choose to ignore it. Given its availability and environmental benefits, nuclear is an option that cannot be ignored if we are to tackle the energy problem in a serious way. To assume that we can store and safeguard the waste for thousands of years may be hubris, but we come out in favor of developing nuclear technology in part because we already have to store the legacy nuclear waste that has been generated over the last 50 years. Another 60 or so years of waste will represent a marginal addition to that enormous task, but it would buy us badly needed time to carefully develop other energy sources that do not entail net greenhouse gas emissions. Also, we find that many of the concerns raised against the development of nuclear power are vastly exaggerated. For example, as we describe in this chapter, safe storage of the waste does not require 10,000 years: if we use reprocessing technologies, the remaining waste could be rendered benign in a couple of centuries.


2019 ◽  
Vol 68 (2) ◽  
pp. 122-130
Author(s):  
Axel Ockenfels ◽  
Christoph M. Schmidt

Abstract The discussion of climate policy received new impetus in the spring of 2019. Since then the topic has dominated the public discourse in Germany. The Fridays for Future movement continues to generate considerable pressure on policy makers. In addition, scientists emphasize in rare interdisciplinary unanimity both how urgent a radical renewal in climate policy would be, and that a uniform price for greenhouse gas emissions is the indispensable core element of the necessary reforms in Germany and Europe. One central aspect of climate policy is, however, often overlooked in all this: climate protection is essentially an international problem of cooperation. For climate change, it does not matter where greenhouse gases are emitted. The success of national climate policy must therefore be judged by whether it contributes to establishing international cooperation to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.


2020 ◽  
Vol 714 ◽  
pp. 136378 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shan Guo ◽  
Ping He ◽  
Munkhsoyol Bayaraa ◽  
Jiashuo Li

2020 ◽  
Vol 163 (3) ◽  
pp. 1501-1517 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toon Vandyck ◽  
Kimon Keramidas ◽  
Stéphane Tchung-Ming ◽  
Matthias Weitzel ◽  
Rita Van Dingenen

AbstractThe overlap in sources of greenhouse gas and local air pollutant emissions creates scope for policy measures to limit global warming and improve air quality simultaneously. In a first step, we derive estimates for the air pollution mortality-related component of the social cost of atmospheric release for 6 pollutants and 56 regions in the world. Combining these estimates with emission inventory data highlights that sector contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution health impacts differ widely across regions. Next, simulations of future emission pathways consistent with the 2 °C and 1.5 °C targets illustrate that strengthening climate policy ambition raises the total value of air quality co-benefits despite lower marginal co-benefits per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions abated. Finally, we use results from a multi-model ensemble to quantify and compare the value of health-related ambient air quality co-benefits of climate policy across sectors and regions. On the global level, overall air quality co-benefits range from $8 to $40 per tonne of greenhouse gases abated in 2030, with median across models and scenarios of $18/tCO2e. These results mask strong differentiation across regions and sectors, with median co-benefits from mitigation in the residential and service sectors in India exceeding $500/tCO2e. By taking a sector- and region-specific perspective, the results presented here reveal promising channels to improve human health outcomes and to ratchet up greenhouse gas reduction efforts to bridge the gap between countries’ pledges and the global targets of the Paris Agreement.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document