So the thing to look at isn't poor people's emissions, it's rich people's emissions, given that (relatively speaking, bc increasing money supply just decreases its worth) the richer rich people are, the more poor people there are (or the poorer the poor people are). This is well-known, you can google and find tons of articles, but here's one from BBC: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20211025-climate-how-to-m...
The poorer you are, the less you can individually consume, and the more you must go for things that are cheap at the expense of other things (e.g. buying single-use goods over and over is cheaper short-term than buying something made to last). I think the idea is that if more people were middle-class, we'd see consumers make better choices (personally, I don't see that happening without government intervention of some kind, but that could hurt poor people even more if it happened before poor people got more money to afford more eco-friendly choices). And on the opposite side of the spectrum, if rich people weren't quite as rich, they wouldn't consume quite as much in excess, and would lead to less emissions.
Unfortunately, that idea is more than just an idea: https://www.epi.org/blog/inflation-minimum-wages-and-profits...
Do you have examples of these — single-use goods that are contributing to global warming and that poor people are buying over and over, more so than wealthier people — or in general, any empirical evidence that poor people are following this economic strategy, thereby contributing to global warming?
There's often a huge difference between what poor people actually do and think and what wealthier people believe poor people do and think.
> that poor people are buying over and over, more so than wealthier people
Not only is this a line of argument I disagree with, I even explicitly said I disagreed with it in this part of the comment you are replying to:
>> I think the idea is that if more people were middle-class, we'd see consumers make better choices (personally, I don't see that happening without government intervention of some kind
I'm definitely confused about it now.
You said: "The poorer you are, the less you can individually consume, and the more you must go for things that are cheap at the expense of other things (e.g. buying single-use goods over and over is cheaper short-term than buying something made to last)." I disagree that the part in parentheses follows logically from the part outside the parentheses, and I disagree that the part in parentheses necessarily represents the economic strategy of poor people. So, I'm not sure what your view is on that, or what exactly you intended with that sentence.
Me too, it does not! It's the reverse, the part in parentheses is what causes the larger part. Say I want water. A case of water bottles is a lot "cheaper short-term" than a single, reusable, water bottle. That's an example of the parenthetical, I'm sure you can think of many more. Now, look at how it connects to the part of the sentence outside of the parenthetical, and directly before it: "the more you must go for things that are cheap at the expense of other things"
So for example, if I were poor enough, I'd buy cases of water instead of a water bottle, EVEN IF I knew the single use water bottle was better for the environment and a better choice long-term! Note that I do NOT assert that most or even many poor people, given more money, would switch to reusable water bottles on their own (hence the "government intervention" bit). If you're confused by the first half of that sentence, think of it this way: if I have $10 and you have $1000, which of us can buy more plastic?
> I disagree that the part in parentheses necessarily represents the economic strategy of poor people
This really isn't about poor people being the most environmentally conscious or the least environmentally conscious. It's about "this box of pads costs the cheapest so I'll buy it". Even if you imagine a tree-hugging poor person looking at a diva cup thinking "this is cheaper long-term and it's better for the environment", if they don't have the money for it, or if spending that money means not eating for quite a while, then they're not going to buy it.
Uh... no? What size case are you talking about? Water bottles can be super cheap.
> So for example, if I were poor enough, I'd buy cases of water instead of a water bottle, EVEN IF I knew the single use water bottle was better for the environment and a better choice long-term!
I disagree. This seems to be based on pure speculation and projection.
> It's about "this box of pads costs the cheapest so I'll buy it".
You seem to be imagining that poor people can't do any long-term economic planning in their own lives, which is false. As if they're somehow trapped in irrational, short-term, self-defeating thinking.
Poor people can plan. They can budget. They can put off purchases. (They can also drink tap water, except in Flint, Michigan.) We're not talking about a homeless person with a few dollars to their name, who wouldn't be buying cases of water anyway, because there would be nowhere to put a case of water.
In any case, how much do you think water containers are contributing to global warming? This is why I asked for examples. The topic here is the 1.5C threshold.
>> So for example, if I were poor enough, I'd buy cases of water instead of a water bottle, EVEN IF I knew the single use water bottle was better for the environment and a better choice long-term!
> I disagree. This seems to be based on pure speculation and projection.
No, it's based on not having enough money. I guess water bottles are a worse example here, you're right, I've done a bad job of making this point here. See my other paragraph for a better job. Here's a more specific example: a homeless person with $10 goes to a store charging $5 for a box of pads and $40 for a diva cup. They will not buy a diva cup. It's that simple. They'll get their pads. "They won't buy a pad at all" people have needs, maybe some won't but this is a matter many wouldn't compromise on. "They will save" what will they save, pennies? Trust me, this is not a winning argument, there are mathematical boundaries you can't cross, and there's also the fact that if you're optimizing so hard on the diva cup, you aren't optimizing as hard (if at all) on something else.
> You seem to be imagining that poor people can't do any long-term economic planning in their own lives, which is false. As if they're somehow trapped in irrational, short-term, self-defeating thinking.
You're looking at a poor person who has the money to save. I'm looking at a poor person who doesn't. My point wasn't about smarts, this is about basic human needs and a lack of money.
It's true that with more money, you can spend it on more green things. I won't disagree with you there - it was actually the central point that started all of this! And we were agreeing that just because they can doesn't mean they will! That poor people are not somehow magically much more eco-friendly, if only they were given more money. They're not some monolith.
> We're not talking about a homeless person with a few dollars to their name, who wouldn't be buying cases of water anyway, because there would be nowhere to put a case of water.
Very good point, my diva cup argument is a much better one than the water bottle one.
>> A case of water bottles [...]. That's an example of the parenthetical, I'm sure you can think of many more
>> [...] pads [...] diva cup
> how much do you think water containers are contributing to global warming
As I hope you can see from my own words, not very much. I'm providing specific examples of a generality. I can do more at other economic levels if you want. How about "how much does a cheap ICE car cost vs a cheap EV"? Of course, keep in mind the idea I have that people aren't all investing the most resources possible into eco-friendliness, as well as how eco-friendliness exists in many dimensions, so if you're saving for the EV it's harder to be saving for other eco-friendly things, the difficulty in finding a cheap used EV nearby, dealing with debts, etc. - and yes, I do think we can construct a lot of scenarios where a person choosing ICE vs EV can afford the EV, but I think we can also see how it can be quite burdensome on average, and that with more money, the person in question could afford to get to and buy a used EV (but again, I'm not saying they necessarily will! Or even that poor people put into this scenario are more likely to choose the EV over a more expensive ICE car, or something else entirely)
College students are your example of poor people? I can see why we're having trouble here.
Poor people can't afford to go to college, unless they have a full-ride scholarship or massive student loans (which they'll have to pay back later). The cost of water bottles is quite irrelevant here, when college is vastly more expensive than water.
> a homeless person with $10 goes to a store
Are we now going to blame global warming on... the homeless? (Going back to the OP: "The worst thing for the environment is poverty.")
Anyway, the homeless are only a subset of the poor.
It should also be said that homelessness is not a result of "kneecapping our economy" (OP) but rather our Darwinistic social policy that allows people to fall through the cracks. We have homelessness even in the "best" of economic times, and often in the wealthiest of places (SF, NYC).
> You're looking at a poor person who has the money to save. I'm looking at a poor person who doesn't.
I'm looking at low income people. Mainly, the working poor. People who have an income, and also expenses, but who are not destitute and begging for spare change on the street. It is possible for low income people to budget over the long term, i.e., monthy, yearly, etc.
> How about "how much does a cheap ICE car cost vs a cheap EV"?
Well, public transportation would be the most environmentally friendly option, and also the cheapest.
You'll usually have a harder time convincing a wealthier person to take public transportation than a poor person.
In the future, consider arguing differently.
This is not true. "Higher and lower incomes make little difference to people's concern about the natural environment, according to new research from the University of Bristol." https://phys.org/news/2012-09-environmentalism-rich-poor.htm...
See also: "People Of Color And Poor Americans Are More Likely To Care About Climate Change, Study Says" https://www.livekindly.com/people-color-poor-likely-care-cli...
Middle class Americans drive lifted pickup trucks without using the main functionality. That harms the environment
Study for attitude to climate policies and more for countries all around the world, rich and less rich: https://www.oecd.org/climate-change/international-attitudes-...
If you're going to make up a rule then you need to actually substantiate your rule. Because considering I came from a family of fishermen (per your fish population quote) that was also in deep poverty I can tell you we specifically cared quite a bit about the environment; because ensuring that fish stocks didn't deplete is kind of a big deal for business.
The same politicians forcing insane "carbon taxes" are also putting in place immigration policies that bring in an absolutely massive number of people each year.
This, of course, drives up the demand for electricity, housing (including heating, as you mention), infrastructure, transportation (of goods and people), food, and so forth, all of which contribute to "carbon emissions".
The "green belts" that have been imposed by government around major cities just end up pushing urban sprawl farther out, beyond those belts. This, in turn, increases the time and energy spent commuting and travelling, which is usually done by car, since public transit in Canada is very limited and impractical, and the distances are quite far.
Thanks to significant and overbearing government bureaucracy and regulations, building high-rise residential buildings in the densest cities takes ages. The actual construction phase is very rapid compared to sorting out the bureaucratic details.
If these politicians really wanted to limit or cut "carbon emissions", the first thing they'd be doing is halting pretty much all immigration into Canada, to at least let the situation stabilize.
I get we've got low birth rates. Maybe encourage the people that are here _now_ to procreate instead of forcing both care-givers to slave away all their hours to their employer instead of using the time for child-rearing?
I get that people don't want to work for low wages - maybe we can stop bringing or severely limit the amount of immigrants for a bit (all avenues of immigration, education - and it's associated literal immigration mills and foreign housing investment schemes; refugees - that somehow are still refugees when crossing by land from USA into Canada, that are happier than ever to come to the country and make minimum wage because it's MUCH more than they made overseas - which they're now finding out is completely untenable in today's Canada, and some are even choosing to leave the country they immigrated to!)
I'm definitely _NOT_ claiming immigration as the sole cause of all our problems, but when Statistics Canada says a quarter of all people in Canada are immigrants or permanent residents, maybe we need to slow things down a bit for a little while to let things settle.
I really find it a big problem that we're putting "the climate" as a higher priority than the people that are living here, right now, suffering because of multiple factors - one of which is governmental mismanagement, along with inflationary monetary policies, the sudden removal of all economic activity with Russia (a whole separate issue).
I have no doubt in my mind that the Liberal MP who voted for exempting home heating from the carbon tax will be conveniently replaced during the next election cycle - given the current Liberal party culture of "follow us in lockstep or you're gone".
I also have no doubt in my mind that because the western world decided to lower domestic production of energy sources like natural gas and oil products that we're going to see a an unexpected amount of people dying from freezing to death in their homes. Canada, USA, or Europe.
Extremely frustrating that the Canadian government continues to insist raising carbon taxes on everybody during one of the most unstable economies, during the aftermath of a pandemic with harsh actions that wouldn't have needed to be so harsh if they didn't have a dilapidated healthcare system propped up by good feelings and government-sponsored marketing campaigns to "thank a nurse!"
I'd rather support someone who takes care of people _now_ instead of fear-mongering us to give up more of our money for "the future" - which we'll never see because we'll already be dead of old age anyways.
It seems so idealistic and faith-driven to me - just an excuse to take more of your money away from you with no meaningful return on your forced "investment".
Why do you think we have inflation, housing crises and environmental catastrophe today, if not for the short sightedness and selfishness of those who came before us?
Your position appears to be one of self centered convenience, the exact same mindset that has prevented any solutions in the past.
You are literally proposing we do nothing because it will impact you. Well, at some point, we won't even have a choice: we will have our backs against the wall, with the costs of our inaction limiting our choices.
We have all these things going on today because of the actions of governments over the past 10-20-30 years. I didn't cause the inflation, I didn't cause the housing crisis, and I certainly didn't cause the environmental catastrophes.
Why the government wants to clean up their messes with more of _my_ money has me flabbergasted.
For some reason, society has decided to put trust in governments to help us with climate change, when the very same governments put us into this situation in the first place.
The very same governments who said to trust them, while encouraging economic policies for decades that favor the rich and politically elite - insider trading, complete and total export of manufacturing to third-world countries, back-door deals...
The very same governments who said they'd take care of our health is the same government that let the medical system get administratively bloated without caring about front-line staff. Now there's country-wide shortages that likely won't be fixed for at least a decade, if not more while we try and encourage more people into medical fields.
The very same governments who said that we care about stopping inflation, but are peachy keen with sending billions upon billions of dollars overseas to a country that before a year ago, 90% of us couldn't find on a globe.
So many times the government has lied to the people - why would this time be any different?
Sure, the government relies on experts to make their policy changes - climate scientists, economists, doctors, etc. But do you think they'd ever follow an expert that suggests advice that is _not_ in the governments best interest? Better yet - do you not think that governments don't find experts that tell them what government wants to hear?
Far as I'm concerned, this climate tax stuff is all an excuse to extract more money out of the middle and lower classes. People who have literally no idea on how the climate works just parrot "i'm helping the planet!" while their wallets get emptier and emptier.
You can't enjoy the nice climate/life when you're penniless, starving, and working slave labor to make ends meet. But the rich and elite sure are on your dime!
I assure you many Canadians are getting ready to fire up ye olde wood stove this winter who wouldn't otherwise but are doing so thanks to motivation from energy prices.