Inequality Matters !!!

"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.

GHG emission (anthropogenic) IPCC, (2014)

A study by Hope et al (2013)  estimates the cost of climate change along different economies. The result shows social cost of carbon (SSC) is comparatively higher for lower growth economy. PAGE09, an integrated assessment model, was used to estimate the SSC. It is an upgraded version of PAGE02, which uses economic and climate information to produce policy focused estimates on cost, discontinuity etc. Hope(2011), The model has been used in various study eg. Johnson et al. (2013) in estimating the social cost of carbon (SCC) for modernizing the electricity, Pycroft et al.(2014) for estimating the economics impact of extreme sea level rise. Hope (2014) uses the recent information on different GHG gas emission, GDP, population growth trend etc (See, Hope(2011) for detail of model and the information required). The GDP growth for developed countries is adjusted at 2% and that for developing at 4%. The result shows that SCC for developed country is  $107 and for developing economy is  $138 per tonne of carbon dioxide. The paper also analyses the changes in SCC with different GDP growth scenarios. The model is sensitive to Elasticity of the Marginal Utility Consumption (EMUC) and Transient Climate Response (TCR). 

Source:  Jorgenson (2014)

SSC as well as CIWB could have been influenced by the carbon burden shifting from developed country to developing counties as discussed by Kanemota et al (2014), which is also viewed as a problem in recent decade. Shifting of CO2 burden along developing countries doesn't necessarily resolve the problem; as this could reduce the CIWB but not the overall CO2 emission and inequality in socio-economy.  As well being and GDP are strongly associated with consumption pattern. If, consumption pattern of developed nation is transmitted along the globe,  the scenario will obviously be different. Balance between development and GHG emission is not easy. Lack of climate adaptability with higher dependence in natural system for livelihood, eg. rain fed agriculture, dependence on local spring and lake for drinking water etc. might contribute to higher vulnerability. Many studies are currently focusing on effect on climate change on agriculture in development economies. A example can be  Gebreegziabher et al. (2015) which estimates reduction of agricultural income by 20% as compared to scenario without climate change.  

From above discussion, it seems, developing countries who actually have lower share in speeding climate change have to bear larger social cost. Global governance and co-ordinated effort form both developed and developing economy is utmost to #actonclimate. To have this in place, the issue of inequality should be considered. As inequalities is more than income difference, and also encompasses social justice and overall socio-political practices. Thus, to engage broader community it is responsibilities of all, irrespective of economies and status, to sensibly act on inequality and  climate change, as an opportunity to make this single world also a best place to live.