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 climate extremes such as heat waves and droughts.

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,"

  • will@lemm.eeEnglish
    877·
    3 days ago

    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.

    • solo@slrpnk.net
      1310·
      3 days ago

      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.

      • silence7@slrpnk.netM
        23·
        3 days ago

        That’s the top 10% in the United States. They’re talking about the top 10% in the world.

        • solo@slrpnk.net
          51·
          2 days ago

          I don’t think so. I have the impression that the introduction part was talking in general, mainly because it says The amount varies by location and local wage trends, and then it talks about the US, specifically.

          Appart from that, in page 23 of the Global Wealth Report 2024 by UBS in The global weath pyramyd 2023 it also says saomething similar, that 16.3% of adults have wealth in USD of 100k to 1m.

          Did I get something wrong?

          Edit: At the bottom of the investopedia article, they have the sources and since they only have references about the US, I believe I can safely say that I my assumption that the intro was talking about the entire world was wrong.

      • shoo@lemmy.world
        19·
        3 days ago

        I think you’re underestimating how poor most of the globe is. This study is also on wealth, not just income

        • solo@slrpnk.net
          2·
          3 days ago

          The calculations in the site you linked is more of a creative accounting approach for feel good purposes. Nothing serious there imo.

      • solo@slrpnk.net
        2·
        2 days ago

        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.