don't make low co2 emissions holy grail - indoor air cleaner
Senior officials from 190 countries are currently meeting in Bonn, Germany, to draft a draft agreement that will be signed six months later at the upcoming UN climate change conference in Paris.
While this may seem far from our daily lives, the December deal could have serious consequences --
Not only for the natural environment, but also for the creation of wealth and the quality of our lives.
For some activists, low carbon dioxide emissions seem to be the ultimate goal for humanity at all costs.
For them, this is the holy grail of morality and the environment.
However, it is not a coincidence that almost all of these activists live in industrialized countries where drinking water and basic consumer goods are available to almost all. These well-
Well-meaning people often forget that the economic development they so passionately condemn has made billions of people enjoy the standard of living that almost everyone in the past can't reach.
In a sense, living standards are based on carbon emissions --
Or more precisely, it's about the use of fossil fuels, which emit carbon dioxide when used to power the modern world.
In terms of these emissions, the OECD's big "polluters" are among the countries with the highest average income.
Canadian emissions, for example, 14.
7 tons of carbon dioxide per capita.
But per capita income reached $47,465.
By contrast, countries with very low carbon emissions
If we accept the logic of these activists, the real "green" champion in the world --
Predictably, in countries with the lowest average income.
Only 0 people from Haiti.
Carbon dioxide per capita is 2 tons, but this is because they have very little economic activity and per capita income is only $669, less than $2 per day.
In such a very poor place, for people, life is often much harder than most of us in the industrialized world-including environmental activists.
For example, although per capita carbon dioxide emissions are very low, according to the World Health Organization, the emissions of air pollutants in people's homes may be 100 times higher than the acceptable level of small particles (WHO).
This is because most residents do not have the means to buy modern household appliances, so their houses must be cooked and heated by burning wood, crop waste, charcoal, coal and feces, or in open fire, either in the leaking stove.
WHO estimates that the resulting indoor air pollution has killed four people.
There are 3 million people each year, most of them women and children, because they can cause diseases such as pneumonia, stroke, heart disease, chronic pulmonary disease and lung cancer.
In addition, low levels of development often go hand in hand with the lack of environmental standards.
This goes against the whole idea of sustainable development, which gives the impression that the ecological footprint of the poor is smaller.
But the facts are completely different.
The poorer we are, the more soil we erode, the more times we dig out endangered animals, the more we live in an unsanitary environment, and the younger we die.
Paradoxically, the richer we are, the more attention and resources we can free up for environmental issues, resulting in increased forest coverage, clean water and air, and a longer and healthier life
Without climate models that predict the end of the world due to our carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activists will be forced to praise the ecological benefits of our fossils. fuel-
The power of the modern world.
This does not mean that we should not try to reduce our carbon emissions within a reasonable range, because when technological advances provide us with cost instruments --
While reducing our carbon emissions may be a worthwhile goal, it is not the only one worth pursuing.
Economic growth must continue so that the poor in the world can continue to get rid of poverty and replace their timber. and coal-
Amenities in the 21 st century.
It must continue so that people who live in the industrialized world can improve our lives.
We must continue to do so that it is easier for all of us to use our more wealth to adapt to climate change.
Bottom line: Never sacrifice economic growth and wealth creation at the altar of climate change. – Michel Kelly-