4.7 Article

Your money or your life? The carbon-development paradox

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS
Volume 15, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab7461

Keywords

climate change; well-being; economic growth; energy; food; decoupling; Easterlin paradox

Funding

  1. Leverhulme Trust Research Leadership Award 'Living Well Within Limits' [RL-2016-048]
  2. Leverhulme International Academic Fellowship [IAF-2018-018]
  3. UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) for the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP) [ES/K006576/1]
  4. UKRI Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) for the UK Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions (CREDS) [EP/R035288/1]
  5. UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) [EP/S029575/1]
  6. EPSRC [EP/R035288/1, EP/S029575/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  7. ESRC [ES/K006576/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The relationship between human health and well-being, energy use and carbon emissions is a foremost concern in sustainable development. If past advances in well-being have been accomplished only through increases in energy use, there may be significant trade-offs between achieving universal human development and mitigating climate change. We test the explanatory power of economic, dietary and modern energy factors in accounting for past improvements in life expectancy, using a simple novel method, functional dynamic decomposition. We elucidate the paradox that a strong correlation between emissions and human development at one point in time does not imply that their dynamics are coupled in the long term. Increases in primary energy and carbon emissions can account for only a quarter of improvements in life expectancy, but are closely tied to growth in income. Facing this carbon-development paradox requires prioritizing human well-being over economic growth.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available