Two Green Leaves

Climate Change from the Affected Generation

The Climate Economy 6 September 2015 | Posted in News

  I never thought that a college level chapter about the climate economy could be so interesting. Andrew Dessler explained it so well and it made perfect sense.Thank you (Andrew Dessler) for your nice tweet (forwarded to me by The Adaptors). I look up to people like you! Anyway, let’s get started by first just talking about global trade.

  That gum you’re chewing on right now has a carbon price (embodied energy). The price is small but is still there and the price can add up. By not buying that gum, you would’ve canceled the trade of money for gum. So this brings up another point. If the GDP (gross domestic product) went up say, 8% it must mean that our carbon emissions would go up 8%. I just thought about why this is true and then I realized it’s because is the GPD was 0%, our emissions would be practically 0. And now we come to yet another point: if the population doubled, in theory the GDP would double and that would mean (you guessed it!) our carbon emissions would go up. This isn’t really true because we would run out of resources quickly and therefore we would have less to trade. So this rule can only apply within a certain range of population. Don’t ask me what it is. I’m not an economist.


  You might of thought of this already but the more money you have (again, in theory) your carbon footprint is larger because you have more to trade with. But if you’re rich, don’t feel guilty. Again this is just a (logical) assumption made by economists. As long as you’re trying to stop climate change, you shouldn’t feel guilty. But if you look at a wealth to emissions global chart, you will find a very distinct pattern: <$=<CO2.


  In the developing world is where a large slice of the population in the world comes from. Child labor is legal in those countries but they have a great excuse for making it legal that we don’t have. The profit made by that child(ren) can help support the whole family. But in rich countries like America, we don’t need extra money from our children (like me) to survive. In America, children are a net loss of money for their families. Children are more common in the developing world because some children are not expected to survive to adulthood.


It’s late at night and I have a headache so I’m going to wrap it up with my short conclusion: >people+>$+>GPD=>CO2


three comments

Stacy, on 23-09-’15 20:07
Timothy William martin, on 18-10-’15 15:45
Nic, (URL) on 30-11-’15 04:06

Comment moderation is enabled on this site. This means that your comment will not be visible until it has been approved by an editor.