Excessive personal consumption has serious global consequences

Climate change is a global problem. But its origin is not so, because not all of us contribute equally: the countries that suffer the most from the impacts of climate change are precisely those that have contributed the least to its occurrence.

The problem is not only that these countries – and also the poorest sectors within the rich countries – cannot cope with these shocks. While 195 countries around the world have signed the Paris Agreement, and while the United Nations, the IPCC and the European Union speak of a climate emergency, we cannot ignore that those who accumulate the most wealth are also the main emitters of greenhouse gases.

There is an accepted euphemism to refer to this situation: excessive personal consumption. And it is essential to address it.

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 footprint, and that the percentage of global emissions for which they are responsible 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 only accounted for 15%. In 2015 the situation worsened: the richest 10% were responsible for 49% of emissions, while the poorest half of the world’s population produced 7%. It seems self-evident that reducing the carbon footprint of the richest could be the quickest way to get to net zero. In other words, cut greenhouse gas emissions until they are as close as possible to zero emissions.

The problem is that tackling excessive personal consumption is something that is not at the center of the agenda of governments, nor of the main political leaders. This is bad news for the planet and for our expectations of one day reaching zero emissions. That is why Greenpeace and Oxfan imposed the issue of the super-rich in the public electoral debate in 2022, the year of elections in France.

While wealthier homes are more energy efficient, they are also larger and take up more space to heat. In addition, those with more economic resources own and use more luxury items and energy-intensive accessories. It is much easier for wealthier consumers to absorb these cost increases without changing their behaviour.

Another example: in most countries, before the covid-19 pandemic, half of passenger aviation emissions were related to the 1% of people who flew most often.

Political neglect of these large resource consumers is a “missed opportunity” to address inequality and carbon reduction opportunities.

Economic inequality is very expensive for us environmentally

It is not just an ethical question. Economic inequality is costly for us environmentally. Millward-Hopkins has calculated that, in energy terms, it represents twice the consumption of an egalitarian society.

Ecological collapse and economic inequality are among the greatest contemporary global challenges, and both issues are completely intertwined and have been throughout the history of different civilizations.

However, the world economy continues to move towards the ecological crisis and inequalities continue to be much greater than what citizens consider fair. The energy costs of inequality are much more significant than those of population size. Even the most moderate levels of inequality that citizens consider acceptable increase the energy needed to provide a decent life for all by 40%.

At that socially tolerated degree of inequality, a super-rich global 1% consumes as much energy as it would take to provide a dignified life for 1.7 billion people. Mitigating climate change quickly requires profound social changes that reduce economic inequalities.

Climate tax for the mega-rich

Efforts to cut carbon emissions often focus on the world’s poorest, addressing issues such as food and energy security, and the potential increase in emissions from projected growth in population, income, and consumption.

However, more policies are needed to target people at the opposite end of the social ladder: the super-rich. Countries are moving in this direction, but given the thorny nature of targeting the influential classes, progress is very slow. The Ministry of Ecological Transition of Spain is proposing to Brussels that people with assets of more than 100 million euros pay a “climate tax” that allows the country to better deal with climate change.

If the mega-rich paid a climate tax of about 2% of their fortune, some 300 billion would be raised globally against climate change. The measure has the backing of science and is one of the aspects that Spain wants to submit for consideration during its imminent presidency of the European Union.

Meanwhile, the world inequality laboratory is not content with appealing to ethics. It appeals from scientific knowledge to the epic before the main challenge that humanity has ever faced: climate change and the socioeconomic model that has generated it.

Fernando Valladares, Research Professor in the Department of Biogeography and Global Change, National Museum of Natural Sciences (MNCN-CSIC)

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original.