As we await the new US commitment on emissions reductions, we should keep two simple facts in mind:
First, the US is responsible for 40% of global emissions in excess of the planetary boundary - more than any other nation or region by far.
Second, the US has already significantly overshot its fair share of the carbon budget for 2C.
This is atmospheric colonization. The US and other high-income nations have appropriated the global atmospheric commons for their own enrichment, gobbling up the fair shares of poorer nations and causing extraordinary damage in the process.
Compliance with the Paris Agreement requires reaching zero emissions by 2050. But this is a global average target. The US and other high-income nations have a responsibility to decarbonize much faster than that. Anything less violates the principles of climate justice.
The source for the first graph is here: thelancet.com/journals/lanpl… And the second graph uses the same method, but with a carbon budget for 2C rather than for 350ppm.
For those asking about China, please read the paper cited above. These graphs do not represent annual emissions or cumulative historical emissions, but cumulative emissions in excess of carbon budget fair shares.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is a significant development. The President of Ireland recently became the first Western head of state to call explicitly for a post-growth, steady-state, eco-social economy, with degrowth where necessary. Read his speech here: president.ie/en/media-libra…
"Failure to achieve sufficient absolute decoupling implies that de-growth remains the only sustainable strategy for planetary survival."
How often do you hear a head of state cite John Bellamy Foster's work on ecosocialism? Powerful and refreshing. With mentions also of the brilliant Ian Gough, Kate Raworth, and Mariana Mazzucato.
David Graeber wrote this beautiful little essay shortly before he died. It reads like a final wish. "When this crisis is over, let's promise to create an economy that lets us actually take care of the people who are taking care of us." jacobinmag.com/2021/03/david-…
"The actual reality of human life is that we are a collection of fragile beings taking care of one another, and that those who do the lion’s share of this care work that keeps us alive are overtaxed, underpaid, and daily humiliated..."
"Why don’t we stop treating it as normal that the more obviously one’s work benefits others, the less one is likely to be paid for it; or insisting that financial markets are the best way to direct investment even as they are propelling us to destroy most life on Earth?"
I want to take a few minutes to respond to statements made by Max Roser, the director of OWID. I hope this will be helpful and constructive for all involved.
First, I want to apologize for having hurt Roser’s feelings. I could have chosen more diplomatic language at times, and I will take better care in the future. I also want to make it clear that my disagreement with him is not personal. It is empirical.
OWID is a valuable site, and we all appreciate the data they’ve made available. But it is also a powerful media platform, with powerful funders. It sets public narratives, which we should be able to critique if warranted on empirical grounds.
Most people don't realise this, but the majority of high-income nations have already significantly exceeded their fair share of the carbon budget for 2 degrees. Their "zero by 2050" targets are therefore woefully inadequate.
This chart is based on emissions data from 1850 to 2015, with consumption-based emissions from 1970 onward.
In order to represent any modicum of fairness or justice, the objective in rich nations needs to be zero as soon as is technically feasible, including by scaling down energy demand so decarbonization can be done more quickly.
For every $1 of aid the global South receives, they lose $14 through unequal exchange with the North. Poor countries are developing rich countries, not the other way around.
These results indicate that charity is not an effective mechanism for development or poverty reduction. What the South needs is fairer wages for their labour and fairer prices for their resources, on which the global economy depends.
This is a wildly incorrect take. To claim that post-growth research is somehow against development in the global South is false, as would be clear from even a cursory reading of the literature.
Degrowth critiques are specifically directed at high levels of energy and resource use in the global North, which are vastly in excess of human need and entail ecological damage that harms the South disproportionately.