The most important factor of climate change is 'wealth', which should be reviewed from the idea that 'richness is good'
Wealth is basically considered good, and many people around the world live for wealth. However, this 'richness' is the main factor that deteriorates the global environment, and even if technological innovation of energy occurs, environmental destruction will not stop as long as excessive consumption continues, environmental scientists, engineers, physicists・A research team made up of economists warns.
Scientists' warning on affluence | Nature Communications
The latest Scientists Warning on affluence-The University of Sydney
https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2020/06/25/the-latest-scientists-warning-on-affluence.html
Affluence is killing the planet, warn scientists
https://theconversation.com/affluence-is-killing-the-planet-warn-scientists-141017
New Report Shows Why We Must Tackle Excessive Wealth to Save The Planet
https://www.sciencealert.com/tackling-excessive-wealth-and-consumerism-will-save-the-planet-not-technology-experts-say
In recent years, it has been considered that two factors that have a great impact on the environment are 'technology' and 'consumption'. Many researchers agree with this, but in the last few decades, of the two, 'consumption' has been particularly pointed out as an influential factor in countries around the world.
According to a paper published in Nature Communications, about 40 million 'the world's richest 0.54%' make up 14% of global living-related greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, the bottom 50% of the world's income, which is about 4 billion people, produces 10% of greenhouse gas emissions.
Researchers also show that the top 10% of the world's highest incomes are responsible for 25-43% of the total environmental impact. Many of these people live in developed countries and consume unsustainable resources even though they do not consider themselves “very rich”.
In the graphs below, orange is the international GDP, dark blue is the global material footprint (MF), and green wavy lines are the total amount of carbon dioxide emitted from fossil fuels (CO2 FFI). .. We can see that between 1970 and 2020, MF and CO2 FFI basically reflect GDP growth.
Countries with rich people and governments have vested interests that promote mass consumption and fulfilled lifestyles. Since individual choice depends on other people and information, such vested interests trap people in the 'mass consumption' life cycle.
The key to this mechanism is the idea of 'Positional consumption'. Warwick University professor Fred Hirsch calls goods that only a few people can obtain due to social scarcity as 'positional good' (people) and wants status goods when they meet basic needs However, he states that this produces economic growth. But when everyone seeks status goods, the total amount of consumption increases. Since the “average life” of developed countries contains many standing goods, it is said that people in developed countries seek average lives, resulting in mass consumption and environmental destruction worldwide. That's why.
New technologies such as renewable energy storage and carbon dioxide capture are being realized as ideas to stop environmental destruction and climate change, but as long as the impact of consumption on the environment exceeds that of technology, innovation will The impact on the global environment cannot be suppressed.
Tommy Weedman, an environmental engineer at the University of New South Wales in Australia, who participated in the study, said: ``Technology helps save energy and resources efficiently, but innovation has never been before. We can't keep up with our level of increase in consumption,' he points out.
Similarly, Julia Steinberger, economist at Leeds University in the United Kingdom, one of the authors of the paper, said, ``To protect us from the worsening climate crisis,'wealth and wealth are essential. The challenge is to reduce the inequalities by challenging the idea that'it's a good thing.””
Researchers have pointed out that the link between environmental damage and wealth is clear, and that things can only get worse if lifestyles and people's attitudes towards money don't change significantly. To do so, of course, wealthy people have to make personal sacrifices, but I also think that the attempt will fail unless it is accompanied by significant structural changes.
Researchers argue that 'sustainable growth' is not feasible in the economy, and a change in the economic paradigm is essential.
'We need to escape our obsession with economic growth.' 'Even with negative growth, we need to manage our economy to protect climate and natural resources,' Weedman said. States.
The Global Sustainable Development Report 2019 announced in 2018 called for the need to rethink the economy, but it did not pay much attention, and the gap widened thereafter. Global warming has advanced.
Researchers say the best solution is to 'tax the richest people' and 'invest in weak ecosystems and poor people,' in light of the findings. Specific examples include environmental taxes, investment in greening, redistributing wealth, creating maximum or minimum income structures, and guaranteeing basic income .
'This review gives another perspective of 'what is important' and calls for the need to overcome the deep-rooted notions that 'humans control nature' and 'the economy must continue to grow.' Weedman warned.
Related Posts:
in Science, Posted by darkhorse_log