December 29th, 2020

As my generation comes of age, climate change is perhaps becoming the largest challenge of our time. One of the main determinants accelerating the process of climate change is the emissions of greenhouse gases, as at current levels our emissions exceed the capacity of the earth to absorb them. This causes an increase in global temperatures with devastating consequences - rising sea levels, a destruction of the ecosystem, droughts, and extreme weather.

Nonetheless, global poverty has been the problem economists, governments and international organisations have tried to solve throughout the 20th century. Because the abolition of extreme and relative poverty results in an increase of nearly all quantifiable metrics to measure living standards: life expectancy, access to clean water/food, access to education, gender equality and war.

However, after one thinks critically, the solution to both issues seems paradoxical. After all, higher incomes traditionally correlate to more spending, consumption of goods, and transportation, which pollute more.

The interpretation of this rigid dichotomy has often been obscured by political motivations, however, and there is no clear consensus on what otherwise might be a straightforward correlation. Many developing countries in Asia and Africa have accused the west of “inequality in per-capita Co2 emissions” . Because despite their attempts to be “green”, richer people tend to be the main polluters.

The Uncommon Sense Approach

The wider relevance of the question cannot be disputed - what we must do is find a solution to face them using accurate, objective data. The existence of this trade-off or not will help us determine which development policies should be implemented throughout the developing world to help solve these two issues. Because do we condemn 3 to 4 billion to live in poverty whilst saving our planet? Or vice versa? To ask that question is to answer it.

[M.L.]