Thank you for your response, your concern is warranted. Empirically many government attempts to reduce emissions have been regressive in practice.
From a previous article entitled Intro to Climate Cope https://econsystemsthinking.medium.com/an-introduction-to-climate-cope-e2c4b30f05cb
"The French carbon tax was austerity dressed up as environmentalism and led to the Mouvement des Gilets Jaunes.
From a 2018 Thomas Piketty blogpost.
'If a carbon tax is to succeed, it is imperative that the totality of the net proceeds be allocated to the social measures associated with the ecological transition. The government has done just the opposite: only 10% of the 4 billion Euros rise in fuel duty in 2018, and the extra 4 billion expected in 2019, were earmarked for social measures, while the remainder financed, de facto, the abolition of the wealth tax (ISF) and the flat tax on income from capital.
If Macron wants to save his five-year period in power, he must immediately re-instate the wealth tax and allocate the revenue to compensate those who are the most affected by the rises in carbon tax, which must continue.
If he does not do so, that will mean that he will have opted for an outdated pro-rich ideology at the expense of the campaign against global warming.'
From a political standpoint as well as a simple economic justice standpoint, a carbon tax must not fall on the shoulders of the poor."
While I support carbon taxes that come with progressive social programs, this policy generally seeks to reduce carbon without significantly affecting existing wealth distribution. It would be wrong to conflate this with degrowth which calls for a more radical reduction of inequality.
I have not heard the statistic you referenced before, but I would question the term “Standard of living.” Its use here seems to conflate GDP per capita with standard of living. This issue is addressed here.
“Ecological economists argue that high levels of human well-being can be achieved without high levels of aggregate GDP and material/energy throughput. Costa Rica is often cited as an example. With a life expectancy of 80.4 years and levels of wellbeing in the top 7% of the world, Costa Rica matches many Scandinavian nations in these areas and significantly outperforms the United States, despite a GDP per capita of only $12,000, one-fifth that of the US. In this sense, Costa Rica is one of the most efficient economies in the world: it produces high levels of human development with minimal pressure on the environment (see the Sustainable Development Index).
The secret to Costa Rica’s success has to do with the country’s longstanding commitment to social policy, with universal access to high-quality healthcare, education and social security.”
I don’t expect any Western Nation to force any of these on their people anytime soon.
