12/31/2023 0 Comments Don carbon locationsIn the US and China the situation is even less equal: the emissions of the top 10% are higher than the bottom 70% combined. In all cases, the emissions of the top 10% are as high as those of at least the bottom 50%. In China, South Africa, Brazil and India, the top 10% cause 30-40 times more emissions than the bottom 10%. In the US, UK, EU and Japan, the richest 10% have carbon footprints about 15 times greater than the poorest 10%. This shift has enormous implications for how the climate crisis can be ended, researchers say, although international support for the poorest and least polluting nations remains vital.ĭata from the International Energy Agency (IEA) details the energy-related CO 2 emissions per person in 2021 in a dozen major countries, plus the 27-nation EU. Now, most of the inequality in emissions between the rich and poor exists within individual countries. Three decades on, the situation has reversed. When climate negotiations began in the 1990s, most of the inequality in people’s carbon emissions was between rich and poor nations. The Cop28 UN climate summit begins on 30 November, at a time when the window to salvage a livable future for humanity is rapidly closing. But the 10% are responsible for half of all global emissions, making them key to ending the climate crisis. The lavish lifestyles of the very rich – the 1% – attract attention. The committee will continue discussing the issues at its next meeting.The world’s richest 10% encompasses most of the middle classes in developed countries – anyone paid more than about $40,000 (£32,000) a year. “I think we’re dragging our heels here,” Ventura said. “I don’t know how many outside people we need to come in and tell us how to write our ordinance,” committee member Eric Scott said.Ĭommittee member Anthony Ventura said the listening sessions would only mean kicking discussion of the proposals - two of which he introduced - further down the road. Some members suggested South Dakota state and county officials would suffice. He said that while the current proposals may be informed by other South Dakota county ordinances, he wants to “hear from people who have real-world experience regulating these things.”įrom there, the discussion pivoted from discussing the proposals on the table to discussing who should be at the table. The Lincoln County pipeline committee held its second meeting Tuesday to discuss four proposals ranging from aggressive setback distances favored by pipeline opponents to lesser distances they oppose.Ĭounty Commissioner Joel Arends suggested the committee should first hear from out-of-state carbon pipeline operators and regulators. The company aims to capture carbon dioxide emissions from ethanol plants and transport them in liquefied form for underground storage in North Dakota, thereby making the project eligible for federal tax credits that incentivize the removal of heat-trapping gasses from the atmosphere. The other, Summit Carbon Solutions, plans to resubmit an application after modifying its route. One company, Navigator C02, has since withdrawn its plan. Commissioners also declined to overrule the county setback ordinances. Commissioners cited conflicts between the pipeline routes and county setback ordinances as a reason for the denials. In September, the state Public Utilities Commission denied permits for two companies seeking to build carbon pipelines in the state.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |