"Everybody !?!" will be a general answers to "Who should pay the cost of climate change?". However, the cost or impact of climate changes is unequally distributed along different economics. Here, in this post, I will discuss how two different papers have estimated the development-CO2 relationship and distribution of its social cost across different countries in the world. This, at least in my view; should underpin the accountability aspect of CO2 emission reduction strategy and addressed as cross cutting intervention in developing global governance for climate change.
Millennium Development Goal was intended toward reducing inequalities. However, UN (2013) describe the progress is yet not visible, with increased gap between some countries . IPCC (2014) report to policy maker clearly mentions about the climate change impacts, demising ice, warming globe and rising sea level; are cause of anthropogenic GHG emission. Jorgenson (2014) used the carbon intensity of human well being (CIWB) as an key analysis variable and suggested that increasing human welfare in coming decade will more carbon intensive. The author attempts to establish the relationship between CIWB and development along different countries with different pace of development. Negative coefficient indicates climate friendly development, which means with development carbon intensity of human well being decreases; whereas positive coefficient indicates that the development will pose additional climate threat. Panel data from 1970 to 2009 from 8 different countries was used to analyse the trend of CIWB. The result shows the positive association of CIWB-development, which means development is driving climate change. On top of this, the paper estimated the elasticity of CIWB among different cluster of countries, i.e. Africa, Asia, America etc, representing regional distribution of inequality. Estimates shows negative coefficient for Africa, suggesting increasing development will lower the CIWB. The coefficient for other regions, North America, Europe and Oceania, are positive and around 0.09 in Asia to 0.126. The difference of coefficient among Asia and developed regions is gradually decreasing, the reason behind can be rapid economic growth in China, Indonesia, India etc. [Based on Jorgenson (2014)] A subsequent analysis could be direct and positive association of growing Asian economy and CO2 concentration.
Looking at the clustered elasticity, one can perceive that developing countries has little to do with carbon emission, however their role cannot be ignored. Despite huge demand for development, although current CIWB is not higher, but might soar up in near future.
Millennium Development Goal was intended toward reducing inequalities. However, UN (2013) describe the progress is yet not visible, with increased gap between some countries . IPCC (2014) report to policy maker clearly mentions about the climate change impacts, demising ice, warming globe and rising sea level; are cause of anthropogenic GHG emission. Jorgenson (2014) used the carbon intensity of human well being (CIWB) as an key analysis variable and suggested that increasing human welfare in coming decade will more carbon intensive. The author attempts to establish the relationship between CIWB and development along different countries with different pace of development. Negative coefficient indicates climate friendly development, which means with development carbon intensity of human well being decreases; whereas positive coefficient indicates that the development will pose additional climate threat. Panel data from 1970 to 2009 from 8 different countries was used to analyse the trend of CIWB. The result shows the positive association of CIWB-development, which means development is driving climate change. On top of this, the paper estimated the elasticity of CIWB among different cluster of countries, i.e. Africa, Asia, America etc, representing regional distribution of inequality. Estimates shows negative coefficient for Africa, suggesting increasing development will lower the CIWB. The coefficient for other regions, North America, Europe and Oceania, are positive and around 0.09 in Asia to 0.126. The difference of coefficient among Asia and developed regions is gradually decreasing, the reason behind can be rapid economic growth in China, Indonesia, India etc. [Based on Jorgenson (2014)] A subsequent analysis could be direct and positive association of growing Asian economy and CO2 concentration.
Looking at the clustered elasticity, one can perceive that developing countries has little to do with carbon emission, however their role cannot be ignored. Despite huge demand for development, although current CIWB is not higher, but might soar up in near future.
