妒火中烧?1990-2020年社会群体内部和社会群体之间的不平等和公平对温室气体排放的影响

IF 4.8 1区 经济学 Q1 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES World Development Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-04 DOI:10.1016/j.worlddev.2024.106885
Indra de Soysa
{"title":"妒火中烧?1990-2020年社会群体内部和社会群体之间的不平等和公平对温室气体排放的影响","authors":"Indra de Soysa","doi":"10.1016/j.worlddev.2024.106885","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The idea that inequality and inequities drive climate change forms a strong discourse in environmental politics. Reducing inequality is promoted as a win–win solution for reducing greenhouse gases. Others view egalitarian processes as a potential threat since increasing the consumption possibilities of the bottom-rungs of society relative to the top would drive up higher overall emissions. Using the latest available data on greenhouse gas emissions and the adoption of green energy technology measured over three decades, this study finds that a variety of measurements of vertical and horizontal inequality and inequitable access to political resources correlate with <em>lower</em> emissions per capita and <em>greater</em> adoption of green energy technologies. Inequality works in the opposite way than often thought. Per capita income levels, contrarily, are robustly and consistently associated with <em>higher</em> emissions, results that support the view that it is overall wealth (consumption) that drives climate change, not its distribution. Reducing inequality and poverty poses a moral and practical conundrum because levelling up incomes within and between countries, given current levels of technology, will worsen the climate crisis. The basic results hold up to a barrage of robustness tests, such as alternative estimating methods, models, and data, and to formal tests of omitted variables bias. Understanding how emissions might be reduced while addressing questions of equity demands calls for much harder thinking, and potentially fewer slogans, such as “eco-social contracts” and “new green deals” that peddle win–win solutions to a ‘wicked problem.’</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48463,"journal":{"name":"World Development","volume":"188 ","pages":"Article 106885"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Green with envy? The effects of inequality and equity within and across social groups on greenhouse gas emissions, 1990–2020\",\"authors\":\"Indra de Soysa\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.worlddev.2024.106885\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>The idea that inequality and inequities drive climate change forms a strong discourse in environmental politics. Reducing inequality is promoted as a win–win solution for reducing greenhouse gases. Others view egalitarian processes as a potential threat since increasing the consumption possibilities of the bottom-rungs of society relative to the top would drive up higher overall emissions. Using the latest available data on greenhouse gas emissions and the adoption of green energy technology measured over three decades, this study finds that a variety of measurements of vertical and horizontal inequality and inequitable access to political resources correlate with <em>lower</em> emissions per capita and <em>greater</em> adoption of green energy technologies. Inequality works in the opposite way than often thought. Per capita income levels, contrarily, are robustly and consistently associated with <em>higher</em> emissions, results that support the view that it is overall wealth (consumption) that drives climate change, not its distribution. Reducing inequality and poverty poses a moral and practical conundrum because levelling up incomes within and between countries, given current levels of technology, will worsen the climate crisis. The basic results hold up to a barrage of robustness tests, such as alternative estimating methods, models, and data, and to formal tests of omitted variables bias. Understanding how emissions might be reduced while addressing questions of equity demands calls for much harder thinking, and potentially fewer slogans, such as “eco-social contracts” and “new green deals” that peddle win–win solutions to a ‘wicked problem.’</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48463,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Development\",\"volume\":\"188 \",\"pages\":\"Article 106885\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X24003565\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Development","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X24003565","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

不平等和不公平推动气候变化的观点在环境政治中形成了一种强有力的话语。减少不平等被宣传为减少温室气体排放的双赢解决方案。其他人则认为平等主义进程是一种潜在的威胁,因为增加社会底层相对于顶层的消费可能性将推高总体排放量。利用过去三十年来温室气体排放和绿色能源技术采用的最新数据,本研究发现,纵向和横向不平等以及政治资源获取不公平的各种测量结果与较低的人均排放和更大程度上采用绿色能源技术相关。不平等的作用方式与人们通常认为的相反。相反,人均收入水平与更高的排放密切相关,这一结果支持了这样一种观点,即推动气候变化的是总体财富(消费),而不是其分配。减少不平等和贫困构成了一个道德和实践难题,因为以目前的技术水平,提高国家内部和国家之间的收入水平将加剧气候危机。基本的结果经得起大量的稳健性测试,如替代估计方法、模型和数据,以及对省略变量偏差的正式测试。理解如何在解决公平需求问题的同时减少排放,需要更认真的思考,可能需要更少的口号,比如“生态社会契约”和“新的绿色交易”,兜售双赢的解决方案来解决“邪恶的问题”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Green with envy? The effects of inequality and equity within and across social groups on greenhouse gas emissions, 1990–2020
The idea that inequality and inequities drive climate change forms a strong discourse in environmental politics. Reducing inequality is promoted as a win–win solution for reducing greenhouse gases. Others view egalitarian processes as a potential threat since increasing the consumption possibilities of the bottom-rungs of society relative to the top would drive up higher overall emissions. Using the latest available data on greenhouse gas emissions and the adoption of green energy technology measured over three decades, this study finds that a variety of measurements of vertical and horizontal inequality and inequitable access to political resources correlate with lower emissions per capita and greater adoption of green energy technologies. Inequality works in the opposite way than often thought. Per capita income levels, contrarily, are robustly and consistently associated with higher emissions, results that support the view that it is overall wealth (consumption) that drives climate change, not its distribution. Reducing inequality and poverty poses a moral and practical conundrum because levelling up incomes within and between countries, given current levels of technology, will worsen the climate crisis. The basic results hold up to a barrage of robustness tests, such as alternative estimating methods, models, and data, and to formal tests of omitted variables bias. Understanding how emissions might be reduced while addressing questions of equity demands calls for much harder thinking, and potentially fewer slogans, such as “eco-social contracts” and “new green deals” that peddle win–win solutions to a ‘wicked problem.’
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
World Development
World Development Multiple-
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
5.80%
发文量
320
期刊介绍: World Development is a multi-disciplinary monthly journal of development studies. It seeks to explore ways of improving standards of living, and the human condition generally, by examining potential solutions to problems such as: poverty, unemployment, malnutrition, disease, lack of shelter, environmental degradation, inadequate scientific and technological resources, trade and payments imbalances, international debt, gender and ethnic discrimination, militarism and civil conflict, and lack of popular participation in economic and political life. Contributions offer constructive ideas and analysis, and highlight the lessons to be learned from the experiences of different nations, societies, and economies.
期刊最新文献
The impact of the Tigray war on child education and labor in Ethiopia The mobilization curse? How oil wealth affects the composition of resistance episodes FDI and coal lock-in: The Global South’s development dilemma No need to wait for reporting − Examining learning from results-based management practices in development cooperation Diamonds aren’t forever: manufactured substitutes, irreversible substitution, and the new resource curse
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1