Wealth and Emissions

Are They Separable? Yes. Is this a narrative violation for much of the political left? Also Yes.

There has been a lot of discussion recently about the nexus of inequality of and emissions. The argument goes that most emissions are caused by the global 1% or 10%, therefore people should stop victimizing India and China which burn a lot of coal, or something along those lines.

Much of the sourcing for this comes from Oxfam here which in turn lifted it from Ivanova and Wood. The key chart from Oxfam is below:

Simple enough. However, look further into the paper and you see the below:

So depending on your political priors this is either an “eat the rich” story:

Oxfam International @Oxfam

The richest 1% are using way more than their fair share of the planet's carbon budget. Tackling inequality and emissions together is the only way to keep 1.5°C alive.

climatechangenews.comTo keep 1.5C alive, the super rich must change their high carbon lifestylesThe richest 1% are using way more than their fair share of the 1.5C carbon budget. Tackling inequality and emissions must go together

Or it is about technology, which is where I come out. Firstly, most emissions come from relatively few sectors that are relatively little of value add. If there are substitutes, and they are cost effective then you simply make the switch without massive downstream impacts on costs. By any measure of efficiency renewables combined with firming are already there, so, the challenge is turning over your low value added gas / electricity / water and transport provision to new technologies not austerity.

For a more intuitive picture look at the average emissions for Sweden and Switzerland compared to Australia. Sweden and Switzerland are not poor but the emissions are radically different.

Australia’s emissions largely come down to coal compared to the other two.

So the solution is: don’t use fossil fuels in your grid, do not use gas for heating, drive EVs and you can have low emissions and be wealthy - very wealthy. Flying is hard but over time substitutes like hydrogen or the like solve that problem too. Note that most of these decisions about power grids, building management and the like are not yours to make - they come down to governments. If you have a free standing home and can put solar on your roof and get an EV that is great but that is not everybody.

My frustration with Oxfam is that this narrative lets governments off the hook. Coal heavy grids need to be pressured more and more to reduce their emissions because it is the biggest lever to pull and renewables plus firming are now lower cost. Discussion over carbon reparations and the like is just pointless so long as it is politically unworkable and just distracts from more practical measures. This is something that I consider to be part of the kumbaya / performance art school of climate action versus the get stuff done school that prioritizes getting on electricity cooperative boards to drive change or getting CBAM measures done. This school of thought oddly has little to say on China particularly Sunrise which has been noted by others.

Noah Smith 🐇 @Noahpinion

1/OK, let's talk about the Climate Left, and what their real impact on society is. This is going to be a "swerve" thread, where the first half just makes fun of the Climate Left, and the second half says "BUT ACKSHUALLY they might be really helpful"...

noahpinion.substack.comThe Climate Left is a useful farceNo, they’re not “serious”. But what else could they be doing?

I’m less sanguine than Noah - these groups are great for galvanizing engagement but they are also formidable fonts of bad takes that rival the PR departments of fossil lobbies at times. Attention and credibility are finite and half baked material like this has real downsides.