And I’d agree there’s truth there: more people means more demand — and we know all too well that the Earth doesn’t support infinite growth (sorry to all the capitalists out there). However, I can’t help but think it’s pointing the finger in the wrong direction; laying the blame at the feet of those yet to walk our planet before they’ve even taken their first breath.

So I’ll posit this: rather than focus on those yet to come and impact our little planet Earth, what if we were to look a little closer to home first — at the everyday luxuries with the high emission price tags that we’ve come to take for granted.

Let me explain. I think we’re all pretty much agreed that the science is showing it’s becoming increasingly important for us to address our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and impact on global and local biodiversity. However, what we fail to recognise is that even within our own personal carbon footprint, not all emissions are equal.

The reality is, there are broadly two different types of emissions:

1. “Subsistence emissions” — which are the GHGs emitted through the consumption of basic necessities such as food, shelter, and transportation;
2. “Luxury emissions” — which are the GHGs emitted through the consumption of non-essential goods and services.

And here’s where it gets tricky: is it fair to ask those in developing nations (typically the Global South) to sacrifice their subsistence emissions (remember, these are emissions from basic necessities) in order to allow the affluent (which are more often and not, those of us in the Global North) to maintain their luxury, high emission, lifestyles?

When push comes to shove, it feels pretty morally unacceptable — and that doesn’t sit well.

It’s important to recognise that poorer nations are often disproportionately affected by the negative impacts of climate change. They are typically more vulnerable to extreme weather events, such as floods and droughts, and may also lack the resources to adapt to these impacts.

Further, those same developing nations have been repeatedly asked to bear the burden of addressing climate change — particularly in the short to medium term — while more affluent nations continue to consume luxury goods and services that contribute further to the problem, creating an endless cycle.

The recent loss and damage fund announced at COP27 was a break through, and takes us a step closer to our collective end goal, awarding finances to the countries that are suffering the greatest losses and damages yet have often contributed the least to the problem of climate change in the first instance. However we need to do more to change our behaviours back home too — even if that comes at the expense of the everyday luxuries we’ve come to enjoy.

The question is: can we bear to take that cost on ourselves?