Paper in Nature Climate Change journal reveals major role wealthy emitters play in driving climate extremes

Paper in Nature Climate Change journal reveals major role wealthy emitters play in driving climate extremes

The world’s wealthiest 10% are responsible for two-thirds of global heating since 1990, driving droughts and heatwaves in the poorest parts of the world, according to a study.

While researchers have previously shown that higher income groups emit disproportionately large amounts of greenhouse gases, the latest survey is the first to try to pin down how that inequality translates into responsibility for climate breakdown. It offers a powerful argument for climate finance and wealth taxes by attempting to give an evidential basis for how many people in the developed world – including more than 50% of full-time employees in the UK – bear a heightened responsibility for the climate disasters affecting people who can least afford it.

“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,” said Sarah Schöngart, a climate modelling analyst and the study’s lead author.

  • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.worldEnglish
    381·
    2 days ago

    Nice to see the phrase “global heating” instead of the wimpy “global warming” or the even more milquetoasty “climate change”. I prefer the phrase “anthropogenic runaway global heating” because it makes clear the scale and severity of the problem as well as its origin, and also for the handy acronym.

    • piranhaconda@mander.xyzEnglish
      3·
      2 days ago

      I immediately started searching this up on seeing the article. Should’ve known someone in the comments already beat me to it. Thanks for the links!

  • Absaroka@lemmy.worldEnglish
    51·
    2 days ago

    To produce their analysis, the researchers fed wealth-based greenhouse gas emissions inequality assessments into climate modelling frameworks, allowing them to systematically attribute the changes in global temperatures and the frequency of extreme weather events that have taken place between 1990 and 2019.

    I do take studies like this with a grain of salt. I don’t know this organization, but they certainly have a point of view, and it certainly is reasonable to think they could have run those computer simulations to say what they wanted it to say.

    Now with that said, I’d wager many of the folks in this thread are included in that 10%. The top 10% of the world makes like $50,000 a year. “Rich” is subjective and varies from country to country, region to region. Hell it can vary widely just in the US. And even in a single state (look at average wages for somebody in the NYC area versus Syracuse).

    • Coreidan@lemmy.worldEnglish
      61·
      2 days ago

      You realize you’re talking about yourself in this context right?

      If you live in the US you are the rich.

      • iamjackflack@lemm.eeEnglish
        11·
        2 days ago

        I’m not sure why your direction is misplaced at me but whatever. Remove me too. My intent to get rid of the richest would be intending to help you but you may be too stupid to realize the goal is to help all of humanity.

        • untakenusername@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          1·
          1 day ago

          Remove me too

          the solution isn’t to kill yourself to help the climate, its to find carbon neutral alternatives to what we have now. like data centers would be fine if the electricity they used came from solar, and driving cars is fine if their electric

    • kameecoding@lemmy.worldEnglish
      193·
      2 days ago

      Hmm, I am probably not, 10% is what, 700 million?

      Between all the rich people, USA, Canadians, UK, Germany, and the rest pf Western Europe that number likely includes enough people to exclude me as a central European

      • JLock17@lemmy.worldEnglish
        162·
        2 days ago

        The last number I was given was that anyone who makes more than a converted $20,000 per year is in the global top 10%. There used to be a global income comparison tool that showed where you stand on the global scale. I feel 90% confident that any individual person reading this is someone who is above that line, especially if they can afford things like internet and electric together. Those kinds of guys are driving cars to work and eating out, instead of making their food every single day and listening to radio because they can’t afford any luxuries.

        I agree that it ain’t exactly smart to say everyone in a developed economy is doing well, but I want to remind anyone reading this to count their blessings and consider their own impact just as much as they try to hold the worst offenders accountable.

        • kameecoding@lemmy.worldEnglish
          6·
          2 days ago

          Copied from reddit comment

          According to https://wid.world/world/#tptinc_p90p100_z/US;FR;DE;CN;ZA;GB;WO/last/us/k/x/yearly/t/false/0/200000/curve/false/country , the global 90th percentile income threshold in 2023 is at about $46,7k USD, market xchg rate.

          So yeah, it’s quite a bit higher than that, plus I think you vastly underestimate how expensive it is to have your own internet connection and electricity.

          And I also make my food everyday that’s quite normal for almost everyone but US citizens

          • JLock17@lemmy.worldEnglish
            3·
            2 days ago

            Making your own food is normal for a lot of people here too, but I know a ton of people who just eat garbage all the time. My grandmother just eats all the time. She will just sit down and eat an entire pan of fried potatoes back to back, and my dad and stepmom just eat fast food every day. I had a nightmare where I was forced to watch my family eat junk off a table and then they got taken away once they got so fat to be butchered. I’ve been getting sick lately thinking about it, and my room mate keeps nagging me to eat way too much. I hate how fat I’ve gotten.

    • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      2 days ago

      Global top 10%’ or ‘access to wealth’

      • You are 18-25, your net financial wealth is $50,000 or more.

      • You are 25-29, your net financial wealth is $100,000 or more.

      • You are 30-35, your net financial wealth is $200,000 or more.

      • hark@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        2 days ago

        Plus things like planned obsolescence they push for to keep people spending. The system is formed around their whims and the system they want demands waste to continue the flow of money.

      • JLock17@lemmy.worldEnglish
        333·
        2 days ago

        Undeniably a majority. We can’t ignore the fact that we have impact on climate too. Big interest want us to argue over blame rather than try to fix the problem (Them). That said, I don’t commute by aircraft daily like Taylor Swift and every other rich person.

        • Buffalox@lemmy.worldEnglish
          81·
          2 days ago

          I don’t commute by aircraft daily like Taylor Swift and every other rich person.

          That shit shouldn’t be legal. In short private jets shouldn’t be legal IMO.

          • JLock17@lemmy.worldEnglish
            5·
            2 days ago

            Yeah, but if they didn’t they might actually have to interact with the poors, and they can’t have that.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        2 days ago

        Probably about or more than half of that. At least that’s what I seem to recall having read.

      • Dagwood222@lemm.eeEnglish
        158·
        2 days ago

        It’s like calling a high school gym teacher a “professional athlete” or someone with an associate degree 'Highly educated."

        I know a nurse who flies ten times a year. All her trips combined don’t add up to the fuel a private jet burns on one trip.

        Moreover, she’d happliy use high speed rail if that were an option.

        • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
          331·
          2 days ago

          Flying once very likely puts you in that top 10%. Remember, the bottom 50% are subsistence farmers from Africa etc. living on like $1000/year.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1319·
        2 days ago

        That’s not as true as it used to be…

        Co-author Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, said: “If everyone had emitted like the bottom 50% of the global population, the world would have seen minimal additional warming since 1990.” On the other hand, if the whole world population had emitted as the top 10%, 1% or 0.1% had, the temperature increase would have been 2.9C, 6.7C or a completely unsurvivable 12.2C.

        And that shows that even the top 10% isn’t a problem.

        It’s not like any group is perfect, the poorest in India and China still use very inefficient coal stoves/heaters, some even use dung. That has an oversized effect on glacier melt due to particulate deposit which goes on to exacerbate climate change.

        It makes zero sense to try and start with normal first world citizens while ignoring it still literally doesn’t matter because the wealthiest are doing so much.

        Like, putting it the average first world citizen to make them feel like that could fix it is literally fossil fuel propaganda…

        Did you know that when you repeated it?

        Not just with emissions but plastic recycling too:

        https://climateintegrity.org/news/view/not-just-climate-big-oil-lied-about-plastic-recycling-too-and-must-be-held-accountable

        Best case scenario here. You’ve fallen head over heels for corporate propaganda…

        • zarathustra0@lemmy.worldEnglish
          61·
          2 days ago

          Kthnx but what I said is factually correct w.r.t. the article.

          If you have a problem with the use of the 10% grouping then take it up with the authors of the paper.

        • Voyajer@lemmy.worldEnglish
          211·
          2 days ago

          2.9C is still really bad though, so I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
            610·
            2 days ago

            That it’s less than half of the 1% and less that a fourth of the 0.1%…

            What I didn’t go I to was a lot of what’s counting against the top 50% is global shipping, which these days they have no control over.

            People in the first world buying cheap plastic junk made in the third world aren’t doing it because it’s cheaper, these days it’s still expensive and often the only available option.

            Like, why are people having difficulty in 2025 understanding that this shit is just so the 99% fight each other instead of uniting against the people who are actually the problem?

            • Saleh@feddit.orgEnglish
              81·
              2 days ago

              You misunderstand these values. The say “if everyone would pollute, like the top …” But when you have 10 people emitting 1% of all emissions and 1000 people emitting 10% of all emissions, you wont get the emissions down to a sustainable level, unless you also address the emissions of the 1000 people.

              It doesn’t matter for the climate change, who or how many people emit, just how much it is in total. I agree that those who emit disproportionately also need to pay more to fix it.

    • Voyajer@lemmy.worldEnglish
      64·
      2 days ago

      If it’s any consolation, idling nets more wear on your vehicle’s drivetrain than just driving it from cold.

        • Harriet_Porber@lemmy.worldEnglish
          112·
          2 days ago

          have you actually read your owners manual?

          this isn’t worth fighting some rando on the internet over. nothing I say I going to change your mind, and that’s fine, not my car not my problem.

          for others that see these arguments - don’t listen to the armchair mechanics online, read your car’s fucking manual. typically the goal is to get your car to operating temp as fast as possible, and most modern cars are designed to heat up as fast as possible under motion. heating your car at idle takes forever and spends more time operating with parts not at their optimal tolerance.

          but don’t just listen to me, read your car’s manual.

      • DominusOfMegadeus@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        4·
        2 days ago

        True for modern fuel injected engines, although 30 seconds before heavy engine engagement is preferable. In cold weather, hybrid engines do need time to warm up the oil though.