The study authors argue that progressive taxes on wealth and carbon-intensive investments may provide solutions.
Researchers say that the wealthiest 10% of people in the world are responsible for two-thirds of global warming since 1990.
The way rich people consume and invest significantly increased the risk of heat waves and droughts, wrote researchers from a study published on Wednesday in the monthly peer-reviewed scientific journal Natural Climate Change.
This is the first study to quantify the impact of intensive private wealth on extreme climate events.
“We directly link the carbon footprint of the wealthiest individuals to their real-world climate impacts,” author Sarah Schengard, a scientist at the Es Zurich Public University, told AFP News Agency. “This is a transition from carbon accounting to climate accountability.”
For example, compared to the global average, the richest 1% contributed 26 times more to one heat wave and 17 times more to Amazon drought.
Emissions from China and the US’s richest 10% each account for almost half of the world’s carbon pollution, but each has risen by an extreme 2-3 times.
“If everyone had released it like the lower 50% of the world’s population, the world would have seen minimal additional warming since 1990,” co-author Karl Friedilich Schroessner said. “Dealing with this imbalance is important for fair and effective climate action.”
Fossil fuels and deforestation have heated the average surface of the Earth by 1.3 degrees (2.3 degrees Fahrenheit) and 1.3 degrees (2.3 degrees Fahrenheit) mainly over the past 30 years.
“Wealthy emitters play a major role in driving the climate to extremes.”
Schoengart and her colleagues combined economic data with climate simulations to track emissions from various global income groups and assess the impact on extreme weather where certain types of climates have been enhanced.
The researchers also highlighted the role of emissions built into financial investments, rather than mere lifestyles or personal consumption. The impact of this consumption and investment is particularly severe in tropical regions such as Amazon, Southeast Asia and South Africa. This is all parts of the world that have historically not contributed to global emissions, but are disproportionately affected by extreme weather conditions.
“Our research shows that extreme climate impacts are not just the result of abstract global emissions. Instead, they can be linked directly to lifestyle and investment choices. “We have found that wealthy emitters play a major role in driving the climate extremes.
The authors argued that targeting high-income financial activities and investment portfolios could lead to significant climate benefits.
“Climate action that does not address the greatest responsibility of the wealthiest members of society risks us missing out on one of the most powerful levers to reduce harm in the future,” Schleusner said.
He noted that capital owners can be held responsible for their climate impact through progressive taxes on wealth and carbon-intensive investments.
Previous studies have shown that taxable asset-related emissions are more equitable than the broad carbon tax, which tend to burden those with low incomes.
Recent initiatives to increase taxes on Super Rich and multinational companies have largely stagnated, especially since US President Donald Trump returned to power in January.
In 2021, almost 140 countries agreed to tackle global corporate taxes for multinational companies.
According to the anti-disaster NGO Oxfam, the wealthiest 1% have accumulated new wealth in $42 trillion over the past decade.
The wealthiest 1% say they have more wealth than the minimum 95% combined.