Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The point is not to shift responsibility away from advanced economies. They have been responsible for more emissions historically and the carbon footprints of their citizens are much higher.[112] The typical per capita carbon footprint in an emerging economy is only one tonne per year, compared to up to 30 tonnes per year in advanced economies such as the U.S. and Luxembourg[113]. And yes, maybe this disparity is even worse due to the fact that advanced economies are consuming energy-intensive goods that are imported from emerging economies[114]). ]

But the problem of population growth and higher overall populations in emerging economies adopting more energy intensive lifestyles remains. These economies and their citizens are likely to use an enormous amount of cheap energy to grow their economies: Global energy demand is forecasted to rise by 30% as of 2040[119] because energy demand and thus per capita carbon footprints increase in proportion to income.

Also, xarbon tariffs (or border carbon adjustments) might prevent some, but not all,[152] carbon leakage and reduce emissions but are very difficult to calculate and lower trade flows and welfare, especially in emerging economies.[153]

citations here: https://lets-fund.org/clean-energy



"per capita carbon footprints increase in proportion to income." If this statement is unconditionally true, no one will be willing make the necessary sacrifices to prevent climate change.

If the rich show that they are willing to make some sacrifices and reduce their footprint significantly, then the poor will be more willing to participate in the fight against climate change.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: