有考虑碳排放两种方式;一个是生产，which measures the CO2 emissions of each country (and where most nations have agreed to reductions under the Paris Accord).
But if I buy a Haier air conditioner or a Samsung washing machine, who is responsible for all of the upfront carbon emissions that came from manufacturing them, or the raw materials that went into them? Should it accrue to China and South Korea or to me in North America? After all, they are making the stuff that I want and I am buying. That's why measuring消费is, I believe, a more sensible method of accounting for carbon emissions.
Follow the Money
事实上，正如该图显示，一直在减少我们所做的碳排放强度有所进展;全球GDP和全球材料足迹（等于所有我们的材料提取）是发散从CO 2 FFI（化石燃料和工业过程）中的比特，但是更碳效率是不够的;它仍然是往上走。它往下走。
Since income is strongly linked with consumption, and consumption is in turn linked with impact we can expect existing income inequalities to translate into equally significant impact inequalities.... the world’s top 10% of income earners are responsible for between 25 and 43% of environmental impact. In contrast, the world’s bottom 10% income earners exert only around 3–5% of environmental impact. These findings mean that environmental impact is to a large extent caused and driven by the world’s rich citizens.
At the extremes, the numbers are even more outrageous:
最富有的0.54％，约40亿人，分别负责生活方式相关的温室气体排放量的14％底部,而50%的收入群体,几乎4billion people, only emit around 10%.
Simply greening our manufacturing or changing our fuel sources doesn't change the larger picture, that "the worldwide growth in affluence has consistently outpaced these gains, driving all the impacts back up."
Reduce Consumption, Don't Just "Green" It
作者认为，解决这一问题的唯一途径是通过减少消费, "not just绿化it."
Avoiding consumption means not consuming certain goods and services, from living space (overly large homes, secondary residences of the wealthy) to oversized vehicles, environmentally damaging and wasteful food, leisure patterns and work patterns involving driving and flying.
该COVID-19锁定真正把付给沃伦的主意that "70% of the pollution, of the carbon that we’re throwing into the air, comes from three industries." (Those being the building industry, the electric power industry, and the oil industry.) When we stopped consuming, they all started emitting less and big fracking players like Chesapeake went bust. A lot of airlines and builders are going to follow. Kill consumption and you kill emissions.
其中，作者指出，其他的事情是需要“采取不太富裕，简单性和充分性为导向的生活方式，以防止过度消费 - 消费较好，但少。”
Sufficiency Before Efficiency
Sufficiency is a subject dear to our Treehugger hearts,but as I have often noted, it is a tough sell; rich people would rather have solar shingles, powerwalls, and electric cars, when a sufficient lifestyle would be very different.
Sufficiency vs efficiency is what we have been talking about on TreeHugger for years; live in smaller spaces, in walkable neighborhoods where you can bike instead of drive. Our posts on Teslas are more popular.
The study authors call for radical change, to "strengthen equality and redistribution through suitable taxation policies, basic income, and job guarantees and by setting maximum income levels, expanding public services and rolling back neoliberal reforms." This is also a tough sell. In their summary article in The Conversation titled富裕是毁灭地球，科学家们警告笔者不太激进和更Treehugger：
Ultimately, the goal is to establish economies and societies that protect the climate and ecosystems and enrich people with morewellbeing, health and happinessinstead of more money.
有许多的方式来让人们减少消费和碳排放;全球性传染病已被证明很好地工作，因为这样做洼地和经济崩溃。作者都指向一个Wellbeing Economy, but I like to direct our attention to a sufficiency economy, like the kind you get when people live a1.5度的生活方式. It's better than the alternatives.