about half of the world’s GHG emissions are attributable to the wealthiest 10% of the global population, and the poorest 50% of the global population is only responsible for 10% of the emissions. So the coupling between wealth, material consumption, and our notion of what constitutes a high quality of life (high levels of consumption) may not be compatible with a world that is both socially just and ecologically sustainable, even with a stable or gently declining population. I find it ironic that when you look at consumption emissions (as many cities and other jurisdictions are starting to do, see this piece from Dave Roberts, land use policies that exclude poor people and drive up the cost of living locally will not only result in longer commutes and higher emissions for those poor people who work in the exclusive community (and those rich people who work elsewhere…) but also over time the wealthier the local population becomes, the higher their personal emissions, and thus the emissions of the city as a whole, will be.
