ecological footprint by income

[screener]

Here's a study showing relative impact on the environment by income distribution in Canada. a couple of quick notes, the highest income 10% has an impact 2.5 times the lowest income 10%.

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/doc..._By_Income.pdf

The lowest income 10 % has 3 times the average impact in China.

Canada has among the highest ecological impacts in the world. At 7.6 hectares per capita, Canada’s ecological footprint is the third largest in the world — tied with Finland and following the United States and the United Arab Emirates as the worst offenders.

Perhaps we should be looking at a per capita/per income method of paying for global warming and other environmental impacts. The other aspect is sectoral impacts with large energy-resource using industry in a category by itself.

[jimg]

People don't need these huge houses. They are just trying to impress people who don't care anyway.

[prashamk]

Originally Posted by screener

Here's a study showing relative impact on the environment by income distribution in Canada. a couple of quick notes, the highest income 10% has an impact 2.5 times the lowest income 10%.

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/doc..._By_Income.pdf

The lowest income 10 % has 3 times the average impact in China.

Canada has among the highest ecological impacts in the world. At 7.6 hectares per capita, Canada’s ecological footprint is the third largest in the world — tied with Finland and following the United States and the United Arab Emirates as the worst offenders.

Perhaps we should be looking at a per capita/per income method of paying for global warming and other environmental impacts. The other aspect is sectoral impacts with large energy-resource using industry in a category by itself.

Is it that the guys earning more are at fault. They are earning more because they are working hard for it.

Hence instead of putting tax on basis of income, I suggest that tax should be introduced at source of GHG emitting actions itself, like purchase of gasoline, electricity, cement and similar stuff.

This way whoever buys something pays the tax while others can relax.

[Karl]

These findings are not very surprising, and are in accordance with the recent findings of surveys that have shown countries with lower average income being “greener” than the most “developed” countries, for example

Originally Posted by Karl

Inhabitants of Brazil and India have the world’s most environmentally-sustainable lifestyle and Americans have the least, according to a new study tracking global attitudes towards consumption and the environment...

Below are the fourteen nations surveyed in order of how “green” they are:

1. Brazilians
2. India
3. Chinese
4. Mexicans
5. Hungarians
6. Russians
7. British
8. Germans
9. Australians
10. Spanish
11. Japanese
12. French
13.Canadians
14. Americans

Sources:
Brazil, India have 'greenest' lifestyle, US trails | CorporateResponsibility.Net
Americans least environmental, according to a new survey

In the context of the above, since there appears to be evidence that economic power is inversely correlated to “green-ness” between countries, it is very likely that similar trends will also be present within countries, since it would the same hierarchical processes that determine these factors.

[screener]

Karl, I think that's right, you would expect the results before but I guess the thing is that no one had made the effort to be sure about it.

Kind of reminds me of a couple decades back there was a lot of concern about what drilling in the artic for oil might do to polar bears if there was ever a spill. So some Canadian scientists went out and dunked a bear in oil and the bear died..... There was more uproar over that then there was over drilling, but as well, as far as I know there hasn't been any new drilling in the Artic Ocean off Canada for quite a while.

So it's not so much what it is, as it is what you do with it. As Prashamk suggests the method of resolving environmental and resource degradation should be looked at. A gas tax, a flying tax, an overall consumer tax, because it's not how much you make it's how you spend it that affects the sustainability of the planet.

jimg is right, working up your social status is affecting all of us.

[Karl]

Good points. At least Canada is willing to admit that these trends actually exist within a so-called "developed" country, and more to the point, release the information (in a document examining "policy alternatives").

[screener]

Thanks Karl, but I can't feel too pompous about Canadas release of the information, the Canadian centre for policy alternatives isn't a government body. It's a non-partisan research group/think tank. Still it's good to know that someone's looking into the alternatives to what the status quo types keep feeding to the press.

It was interesting that agriculture leaves the biggest footprint per capita, and yet the impact of food production on the environment doesn't change much, at least in Canada, as income levels change. So a wealthy person doesn't have much more of an impact on the environment through food consumption than a low income person.

The big differences are in energy use, and consumer goods.

[flashgordon]

I live in what is often referred to as one of the greener cities in the US. I would argue that the people of B-town have one of the higher carbon footprints per capita of anywhere else in the US. Sure, we are pseudo-environmentally friendly, but we consume more eco-products then the average person. Consumption is consumption.

We also have the problem of scrap-offs. Nice, old, houses are being scrapped and giant 5000+ square foot houses are going up. Of course, there is a Prius in the garage.