Richest 1% emit as much planet-heating pollution as two-thirds of humanity

https://www.oxfam.org.uk/media/press-releases/richest-1-emit-as-much-planet-heating-pollution-as-two-thirds-of-humanity-oxfam/

by wallbrownf • 2 years ago

23 14 2 years ago

oxfam.org.uk

wallbrownf• 2 years ago

arbon emissions of richest 1 per cent surged to 16 per cent of world’s total CO2 emissions in 2019 - enough to cause 1.3 million excess deaths due to heat

The richest 1 per cent of the world’s population produced as much carbon pollution in 2019 as the five billion people who made up the poorest two-thirds of humanity, according to a report published by Oxfam today ahead of the UN Climate Summit, COP28.

The report, Climate Equality: A Planet for the 99%, is based on research with the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). It assesses the consumption emissions of different income groups, highlighting the stark gap between the carbon footprints of the super-rich —whose carbon-hungry lifestyles and investments in polluting industries like fossil fuels are driving global warming— and the rest of the world.

The study shows there is also vast inequality in how the impacts of the rapidly changing climate are felt. It is people living in poverty; marginalised groups such as women and Indigenous Peoples; and low-income countries, who have done the least to cause it, who are suffering the worst consequences – and who are least able to respond or recover.

With climate change driving a rise in world temperatures, deaths from heat are set to increase dramatically, particularly in low-income countries. The report reveals the outsized emissions of the richest 1 per cent will cause 1.3 million heat-related excess deaths - roughly equivalent to the population of Dublin - with most of these deaths occurring between 2020 and 2030.

Chiara Liguori, Oxfam’s Senior Climate Justice Policy Advisor said: “The super-rich are plundering and polluting the planet to the point of destruction and it is those who can least afford it who are paying the highest price. The huge scale of climate inequality revealed in the report highlights how the two crises are inextricably linked - fuelling one another - and the urgent need to ensure the rising costs of climate change fall on those most responsible and able to pay.

“The gap between the super-rich and the rest of us is stark. It would take about 1,500 years for someone in the bottom 99 per cent to produce as much carbon as the richest billionaires do in a year. This is fundamentally unfair.

“Governments globally, including the UK, need to tackle the twin crises of inequality and climate change, by targeting the excessive emissions of the super-rich by taxing them more. This would raise much needed revenue that could be directed to a range of vital social spending needs, including a fair switch to clean, renewable energy as well as fulfilling our international commitments to support communities who are already bearing the brunt of the climate crisis.”

Key findings from the report also show:

    The richest 1 per cent (77 million people) were responsible for 16 per cent of global consumption emissions in 2019 —more than all car and road transport emissions. The richest 10 per cent accounted for half (50 per cent) of emissions.

    It would take about 1,500 years for someone in the bottom 99 per cent to produce as much carbon as the richest billionaires do in a year.

    Since the 1990s, the richest 1 per cent have burned through more than twice as much carbon as the bottom half of humanity.

    The carbon emissions of the richest 1 per cent are set to be 22 times greater than the level compatible with the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement in 2030. By contrast, the emissions of the poorest half of the global population are set to remain at one-fifth of the 1.5°C compatible level.

    Every year, the emissions of the richest 1 per cent cancel out the carbon savings coming from nearly one million wind turbines.

    The death toll from floods is seven times higher in the most unequal countries compared to more equal ones...

ars2• 2 years ago

This is a semi-fake study. They attribute emissions from investments to the person investing, this obviously leads to a lot of double counting.

I'm flagging this.

7e• 2 years ago

It's not obvious to me that there is double counting. The study says, "Individual carbon emissions can be divided into personal consumption emissions, emissions through government spending, and emissions linked to investments." Someone needs to be accountable for corporate emissions, and that someone is the owners. That's entirely reasonable.

If a dollar is spent by a corporation on a person, and that person uses it to buy something else that took carbon to produce, yes, you could imagine double counting the emission. But that can be fixed simply by rolling up the carbon emission to the ultimate consumer: a person, a government, or the owners of a corporation. Corporations can pollute by themselves: buying and using corporate jets, for example. Those can't be attributed to upstream consumers.

If anything, this undercounts the emissions of the super rich, since they also are responsible for a good portion of government spending, too--either directly, because of the outsize taxes they pay, or indirectly, because of corporate taxation of profits of companies that they own. But since they don't control that government spending (at least in theory) it seems OK to not attribute it to them.

ars2• 2 years ago

We're talking about investments, they count for example if someone invests in an appliance factory, the emissions of the appliances are billed to the investor.

But of course those emissions are also the responsibility of whoever buys, and operates the appliance.

Because virtually every company and factory is owned by somebody, they've managed to put all the emissions into the responsibility of the owner of the factory, and they give regular people zero responsibility.

I'll ask you: if I fly on a plane, who's responsible for the emissions? Me for flying? Or the owner of the airplane for operating it?

ajsnigrutin3• 2 years ago

This might not be taken well over here, but where is the "limit" to be in the "richest 1%"? Everybody thinks of bills gates, trump, elon musk, etc... But looking globally, i'm willing to bet that half the people here are in the "top 1%" group.

FpUser3• 2 years ago

And if yes then so fucking what? Are we any special?

ajsnigrutin3• 2 years ago

It's important to put into context, and to maybe do more analysis into 0.1% and 0.01% and so on, because many of us, while being "one percenters" are neither really rich nor really pollute a lot.

atmavatar• 2 years ago

Currently, in the US, to be in the top 1% income-wise, you must earn at least $430K/year. If you'd rather look at it from a wealth perspective, to be in the top 1%, you must be worth at least $11.6M.

While I'm willing to bet there are definitely people here who fit one or both metrics, I'd be surprised if half the people here fit either.

FpUser3• 2 years ago

So no need to worry then. Exterminate the rich and we are safely below the threshold ;)

MilnerRoute• 2 years ago

How?

The press release asserts this statistic, but I can't figure out what exactly the 1% are doing that's causing this pollution...

There's a vague reference to "plundering" the planet, which makes me think they're saying the actions of polluting corporations are the responsibility of the 1% (and not, say, the 2%....)

joegibbs• 2 years ago

It's one of those things that's technically true based on using statistics selectively. If you count all their investments, given that the top 1% control 43% of all wealth, they produce a large percentage of global emissions (but at 16%, not as large as their share of the wealth would suggest).

But it's irrelevant to climate change because there's nothing that you can do to them that would substantially decrease those emissions. It's not like they're causing a huge amount of pollution from their private jets and golf courses. If you redistribute their shares to someone poorer then the same amount of pollution will be produced, because a factory that produces five million tons of CO₂ does so regardless of the makeup of the owners.

s1artibartfast• 2 years ago

That also assumes investment ownership is the appropriate approach to attribute emissions.

Richest 1% emit as much planet-heating pollution as two-thirds of humanity

Related Stories