Climate change is a global problem. But its origin is not so, because we do not all contribute equally: The countries that suffer the most from the effects of climate change are certainly those that contribute the least to climate change.
The problem is not just that these countries – and also the poorest in rich countries – have not been able to cope with these shocks. With 195 countries around the world signing the Paris Agreement and the United Nations, IPCC and the European Union talking about a climate emergency, we cannot ignore it. Those who accumulate the most wealth are also the main emitters of greenhouse gases.
There is an accepted euphemism to refer to this condition: excessive personal consumption. And it’s important to address this.
The richest 10% are responsible for half of the emissions
The numbers speak for themselves. A recent study revealed that: rich people leave a disproportionately large carbon footprintand that the percentage of global emissions they are responsible for is increasing.
In 2010, the wealthiest 10% of households emitted 34% of the world’s carbon dioxide, while the bottom 50% of the world’s population accounted for only 15%. In 2015 the situation got worse: the richest 10% were responsible for 49% of emissions, while the poorest half of the world’s population produced 7%. It seems obvious Reducing the carbon footprint of the richest may be the fastest way to reach the goal. net zero. In other words, reduce greenhouse gas emissions until they are as close to zero emissions as possible.
The problem is, addressing excessive personal consumption Something that is not at the center of the government agenda., nor the main political leaders. This is bad news for the planet and our prospects of achieving zero emissions one day. This is why Greenpeace and Oxfan have imposed the question of the super-rich in the debate about the 2022 election year in France.
While wealthier homes are more energy efficient, they are also larger and take up more room to heat. Also, those with more economical resources own and use more luxury items and energy-intensive accessories. It is much easier for wealthier consumers to meet these cost increases without changing their behavior.
Another example: In most countries, before the covid-19 pandemic, half of passenger aviation emissions were related to 1% of the most frequent flyers.
This is a “missed opportunity” to address the political neglect, inequality and carbon reduction opportunities of major resource consumers.
Economic inequality is too expensive for us environmentally
This is not just an ethical question. Economic inequality is too expensive for us environmentally. Millward-Hopkins calculated that an energy-equal society represents twice the consumption.
Ecological collapse and economic inequality are among the biggest global problems today, and both issues are completely intertwined and have existed throughout the history of different civilizations.
But, world economy continues to move towards ecological crisis and inequalities continue to be much greater than what citizens consider fair. The energy costs of inequality are much more important than population size. Even the most moderate levels of inequality that citizens find acceptable increase the energy needed to provide a decent life for all by 40%.
With this socially tolerated degree of inequality, The world’s super-rich 1% consumes as much energy as they need. Providing a dignified life for 1.7 billion people. Rapidly mitigating climate change requires profound social changes that reduce economic inequalities.
Climate tax for the mega-rich
Efforts to reduce carbon emissions the tendency to focus on the world’s poorestIt addresses issues such as food and energy security and the increase in emissions potential from projected growth in population, income and consumption.
But more policies are needed to target people at the other end of the social ladder, namely the super-rich. Countries are moving in this direction, but given the complex nature of targeting the influential classes, progress is too slow. Spain’s Ministry of Ecological Transition is proposing to Brussels that people with assets of more than 100m euros pay a “climate tax” that allows the country to better cope with climate change.
If the mega-rich pay a climate tax of about 2% of their wealth, Around 300,000 million will gather globally against climate change. The measure has the backing of science and is one of the aspects Spain wants to present for consideration during its upcoming European Union presidency.
Meanwhile, the world inequality laboratory is not content with recourse to ethics. It addresses the epic from scientific knowledge before the main challenge facing humanity: climate change and the socioeconomic model that created it.
(*) Fernando Valladares He is a Research Professor in the Department of Biogeography and Global Change at the National Museum of Natural Sciences (MNCN-CSIC).
Reference article: https://theconversation.com/el-consumo-personal-excesivo-tiene-consecuencias-globales-serias-204704
……
Contact address of the environment department: [email protected]
…….
id=”theconversation_tracker_hook”
data-counter=”https://counter.theconversation.com/content/204704/count?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced”
async=”async”>