World's wealthiest 10% have contributed to two-thirds of global warming since 1990, study finds
World's wealthiest 10% have contributed to two-thirds of global warming since 1990, study finds
Wealthy individuals have a higher carbon footprint. A new study published in Nature Climate Change quantifies the climate outcomes of these inequalities. It finds that the world's wealthiest 10% are responsible for two-thirds of observed global warming since 1990 and the resulting increases in clima...
cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/21822936
"If everyone had emitted like the bottom 50% of the global population, the world would have seen minimal additional warming since 1990,"
The study assesses the contribution of the highest emitting groups within societies and finds that the top 1% of the wealthiest individuals globally contributed 26 times the global average to increases in monthly 1-in-100-year heat extremes globally and 17 times more to Amazon droughts.
The research sheds new light on the links between income-based emissions inequality and climate injustice, illustrating how the consumption and investments of wealthy individuals have had disproportionate impacts on extreme weather events
Our study shows that extreme climate impacts are not just the result of abstract global emissions, instead we can directly link them to our lifestyle and investment choices, which in turn are linked to wealth,"
Reminder, if you're on lemmy, you are most likely in the 10%.
similarly you are likely not in the bottom 50% globally.
That would follow from what I said, yes.
It takes only around $850k of net worth to be in the global 1% for wealth. Minimum wage ($7.25/hr) will put you in the top 10% of wages. So this really just says industrialized nations have been responsible for most emissions.
The world top 10% grossing earners start at $49,000
You're talking about income. They're talking net worth.
Very different top 10% sets
Partially, I agree your conclusion, but I believe some clarifications could help on the math part, because minimum wage will never put you in the top 10% of world income.
From investopedia 2024:
How Much Income Puts You in the Top 1%, 5%, 10%?
Individuals in the top 10% earn at least six figures annually. In some areas, those in the top 1% must make over $1 million per year, while in others, the threshold is lower.
Oh, I was just talking about if you averaged things globally. Of course it’s much higher than that if you limit the scope to specific countries or groups.
It's also the rich classes in "developing" countries.
Let's not forget an important factor: within the span of 30 years.
I spent too many hours yesterday trying to find the relevant info without taking this into consideration.
Countries that emit are top emitters, shocking news
Us 90% ers up for a class action?
For anyone wondering, the wealthiest top 1% alone accounts for one-fifth of warming.
Link to original study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-025-02325-x
Full abstract:
Spoiler
Climate injustice persists as those least responsible often bear the greatest impacts, both between and within countries. Here we show how GHG emissions from consumption and investments attributable to the wealthiest population groups have disproportionately influenced present-day climate change. We link emissions inequality over the period 1990–2020 to regional climate extremes using an emulator-based framework. We find that two-thirds (one-fifth) of warming is attributable to the wealthiest 10% (1%), meaning that individual contributions are 6.5 (20) times the average per capita contribution. For extreme events, the top 10% (1%) contributed 7 (26) times the average to increases in monthly 1-in-100-year heat extremes globally and 6 (17) times more to Amazon droughts. Emissions from the wealthiest 10% in the United States and China led to a two- to threefold increase in heat extremes across vulnerable regions. Quantifying the link between wealth disparities and climate impacts can assist in the discourse on climate equity and justice.
That's huge. That means that if you're in the tenth percentile of income/emissions, you might well be emitting less than the global average.
I say this because it's true if you make the assumption of exponential decay. Their data isn't accurate enough to check that assumption, but it's the most parsimonious one, and in this case the function that fits would be:
E = 29.5 e^(-P*0.36)Where E is the emission fraction and P is the percentile as an integer. This results in the table below, with the numbers in bold the ones that the function is fit to.
Percentile Emissions fraction Cumulative emissions fraction 1st 20.6% 20.6% 2nd 14.4% 35.0% 3rd 10.0% 45.0% 4th 7.0% 52.0% 5th 4.9% 56.9% 6th 3.4% 60.3% 7th 2.4% 62.7% 8th 1.7% 64.4% 9th 1.2% 65.6% 10th 0.8% 66.4% Since a percentile is 1% wide, an emission fraction of 0.8% is below the global average.
This assumption doesn't fit with the remaining 90% of the population, but it makes sense that the exponential relationship would slow down as people maintain a "poverty line" minimum footprint. If this consideration already affects the 10th percentile, it's possible the 10th percentile still emits more than the global average.
(fig.3)
Then they blame poor people for having too many kids.
Special Surprise: that probably includes you and me.
I don't have a car and I don't eat meat, so it definitely doesn't include me.
Oh, do you happen to have a military? That's actually a big chunk of the reason Americans have such a high carbon footprint... That and an entire society built around making it almost impossible to live without a car.
Epic! I hope to be able to ditch my car in the next two years, and I've mostly stopped eating meat too, and I haven't turned my AC/Heat on since February (and then not for long.) I feel like taking the kind of steps needed to drastically reduce your share of emissions is easier than a lot of people make it out to be. (Though obviously it depends on life circumstances.)
That's two of the big three sources of household emissions. There's a third one though: which is heating and cooling.
I'd look at getting those off of fossil fuels next, and doing what you can to get electricity from renewables.
Same!
No. It's not 2/3 of climate change caused by wealthy bastards, it's 100%.
Non-wealthy people don't own factories spewing heat and trash into the air. Non-wealthy people might own cars, but they don't design and build those cars to constantly spew dangerous & deadly emissions — wealthy people are responsible for that, and for the lack of a healthier, greener choice for transportation. It's wealthy bastards who've fought against regulations reducing pollution, wealthy bastards who oppose public transit, and wealthy bastards who profit from the climate change that'll eventually kill the rest of us.
Fuck if I'm causing 1/3 of climate change. Fuck, no.
Wealthy bastards make sure environmental protection is a punchline, and wrap everything in plastic like Laura Palmer. The rich are at the heart of every vile thing that's being done to the planet. Virtually all of man-made climate change is caused by rich bastards.
If you choose to eat meat, you're causing loads of climate damage.
Lots of non wealthy people are responsible for a non-zero amount of damage.
You can't really blame individuals for society issues. If I drop dead tomorrow, the global emissions won't change. Still the same amount of cows, still the same amount of cars on the road, still the same governments and policies.
Not saying we shouldn't do anything as individuals, we definitely should, we can all do better. But you can't blame any one random individual for any of these issues, imo(non multimillionaire, I mean). Feels so wrong.