The richest individuals have caused two thirds of global warming detected in the last 35 years: the climatic action should take this into account.
It is known that the theme of social inequalities is strongly intertwined with that of the climatic crisis. But to what extent, exactly, income differences affect on the different responsibilities to climate change? Based on a study published on Nature Climate Changethe richest 10% in the world has contributed to two thirds of global warming from 1990 to today, and to the consequent increase in extreme climatic events, such as waves of heat or drought.
The investment node. The research, coordinated by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (Iiasa, Austria), highlights the connection not only between costumes and lifestyles, but also and above all among the investment choices of the smallest and most privileged portion of the world population and the extremes of temperatures and droughts detectable in world regions very far from this wealth.
The richest 1% in the world took part in a measure of 26 times higher than the global average in the increase in monthly heat extremes which are recorded once every 100 years, and to an extent 17 times higher than the global average at the drought periods in the Amazon.
An area to intervene. If the greatest responsibilities of the richest in the face of the climatic crisis had long been known, the study has the merit of having underlined the link between the way of spending and investing the most wealthy and extreme climatic events. Merit of a new model that combines economic data with climatic simulations, and which has managed to evaluate the contribution of the emissions of different income bands to climatic details.
According to the authors of the work, carbon dioxide emissions by 10% richest in the United States and China only would have caused an increase from two to three times of the heat extremes in the vulnerable regions. “We discovered that the rich emitters play an important role in determining climatic extremes, which provides strong support for climatic policies that aim to reduce their emissions” explains Sarah Schöngart, the main author of the study.
Money in the circle. The study is yet another topic in favor of climatic policies that consider greenhouse gas emissions associated with the investment activities of large companies. An example? A bank or an insurance company that finance and support companies engaged in the production of energy with fossil fuels, or that grant a loan to a company that extracts coal.
Although the financial institution in question is not directly responsible for those emissions, its support to those activities allows you to free climalterant emissions.
Make sure that the rich pollutors pay for the emissions produced so far by directing their investments It would provide the much necessary support to adaptation policies in the countries of the southern world, vulnerable to global warming and extreme climatic events, as well as minimally responsible for the emissions produced so far.
