Do the rich pollute more? Mexican household consumption by income level and CO₂ emissions

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to quantitatively examine if varying household consumption activities at different income levels drove CO2 emissions to different degrees in Mexico from 1990 to 2014. Design/methodology/approach The paper applied a simple expenditure-CO2 emissions elasticity model – a top-down approach – using data from consumption-based CO2 emission inventories and the “Household Income and Expenditure Survey” and assuming a range of 0.7-1.0 elasticity values. Findings The paper results show a large carbon inequality among income groups in Mexico throughout the period. The household consumption patterns at the highest income levels are related to significantly more total CO2 emissions (direct + indirect) than the household consumption patterns at the lowest income levels, in absolute terms, per household and per capita. In 2014, for example, the poorest household decile emitted 1.6 tCO2 per capita on average, while the wealthiest decile reached 8.6 tCO2 per capita. Practical/implications The results suggest that it is necessary to rethink the effect of consumption patterns on climate change and the allocation of mitigation responsibilities, thus opening up complementary options for designing mitigation strategies and policies. Originality/value The paper represents an alternative approach for studying CO2 emissions responsibility in Mexico from the demand side, which has been practically absent in previous studies. The paper thereby opens a way for studying and discussing climate change in terms of consumption and equity in the country.

Climate Inaction in Business Management: An Exploratory Review of the Literature

“…Finally, there is an increasing number of companies adopting an environmental performance perspective caused to the different pressures from society to adopt this approach (Surugiu & Surugiu, 2015). Companies are considered one of the main actors in climate change mitigation, based on their capabilities to design, develop and implement practices to contribute to declining the emissions released to the atmosphere (Dahlmann & Grosvold, 2017;Santillán & De la Vega, 2018).…”

“…The establishment of international agreements towards climate change has the support of different international actors; however, despite these initiatives, the CO 2 emissions have increased and therefore, the global concentrations of these emissions have risen (Santillán & De la Vega, 2018). This consequence has been developed because the economic tendency towards climate change has a neoclassical perspective, where the majority of the strategies and policies have been framed in this approach (De la Vega, 2015;Santillán & De la Vega, 2018), getting unexpected outcomes of the implemented policies of the United Nations (UN) (Barrett & Dannenberg, 2014).…”

Climate Change Paradox: The Least Responsible for It Encounters the Most of Its Implications

“…The disparity in CO 2 emissions between high-income and low-income populations both between and within nations may be explained by the fact that prosperity is the principal cause of carbon emissions. In other words, populations with high living standards have higher carbon footprints [47,48]. The steep rise in CO 2 emissions from 1960 to 2019 can be attributed to the substantial expansion in fossil fuels used for energy generation during this period [49].…”