A study by the international organization Oxfam shows that the rich have a greater impact on climate change after measuring their carbon footprint.
The footprint is the sum of the greenhouse gases (GHGs) that people produce. When the world population is divided according to its wealth, it is revealed that the richest 1% have a footprint 30 times greater than what is needed to meet the goal of the planet's temperature of 1.5 degrees by 2030, as dictated by the Paris agreements.
The emissions of the richest 1% exceed twice the emissions of the poorest half of the world, in the period between 1990 and 2015, according to the study “Carbon Inequality 2030”, carried out by Oxfam together with the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) released on November 5.
“What we say in the report is that the rich have greater responsibility for two reasons, they are the ones who issue the most and secondly those who have the best conditions to be able to respond to the responsibilities they have in regard to the climate crisis. That doesn't mean that the general population doesn't have a responsibility to assume,” explained Carlos Aguilar, Oxfam's regional head of Climate Justice for Latin America.
Inequality gaps claim lives. This is detailed by Oxfam in the study, published in January, “Inequalities Kill”, where it details how the crisis of inequality contributes to the death of a person every 4 seconds, or what is equal to 21,300 people every day.
This is happening at the same time that the wealth of the 10 richest men has doubled, while the incomes of 99% of the world's population were affected by the pandemic.
In an interview, Aguilar details the dimensions of inequality that do not escape climate inequality.
— With the pandemic, the rich have become richer, and the poor have ended up more disadvantaged. From your perspective, what factors have combined to make the pandemic accelerate an issue of inequality?
— Indeed, what we have perceived is that the gap between the richest and the poorest in the Latin American region is widening. There are multiple causes behind it, but obviously, given the pandemic situation we are experiencing, unemployment and the difficulty of accessing basic services such as health and education itself have been determining factors in widening that gap, together with the fiscal policies and structural problems that we were already seeing at the level of the entire region.
— Regarding another report, “Carbon Inequality”, the richest 1% have a carbon footprint of more than 30 times what they should to achieve the climate goal of 1.5 degrees by 2030, it seems logical but explain to us, why do the richest release more emissions?
— That Carbon Inequality study was published just a few months before the “Inequalities Kill” study. It is deeply related to the work we do at Oxfam and has to do with precisely how inequality and the climate crisis that we are currently experiencing are related, not only in Latin America, but also globally.
In this particular case, based on the report you cite, it is inequality in economic growth and how that affects the rapid depletion of the global carbon budget that you referred to earlier in relation to the footprint of the richest 1%. This is largely due to the economic model that we have at the global level, the prevailing economic model, which in turn leads to forms of consumption that are the main ones in the way in which that global carbon budget is being used.
— What does this type of inequality translate into?
There is extreme inequality in carbon emissions and an extreme one around responsibilities that when we measure it even in terms of population deciles, we once again see the expression of that enormous gap between those who spend the most or use the budget and those who are least responsible, but suffer the most from the consequences of the climate crisis that is being experienced in countries.
— Considering the predominance that the richest have in these emissions, do you then consider that there is a false narrative of the consumption patterns that the masses must have?
Well it's a combination of factors. I always say that solutions to the climate crisis are complex and require the collaboration and participation of all social sectors.
What we say in the report is that the rich have greater responsibility for two reasons, they are the ones who issue the most, and secondly, those who have the best conditions to be able to respond to their responsibilities in regard to the climate crisis.
This does not mean that the general population does not have a responsibility to assume in terms of consumption patterns and that it does not have a contribution to make, but what we say in the report is that even if 99% of the global population meets the average emissions necessary to keep the planet's temperature at 1.5%, if the richest do not change their consumption patterns and do not effectively commit to the necessary percentages of the target temperature by 2030, the goal set in the Paris agreements will not be achieved. In other words, the disparity is indeed enormous between that 1.0% and the remaining 99%.
— Faced with this scenario that describes me well, is there a way to regulate the rich, so to speak?
Well, there's a discussion. Obviously, the rich not only have economic capacity, but they have political power, of influence, and that is what we in several of our studies consider to be the power of economic and political elites, we call in several of the contexts that we analyze as even a capture of the State.
The control that economic and political elites have over resources, they are not only financial, but also over natural and common resources, as we also call them in some contexts. It is quite uneven and extreme and that determines the balance of power that exists in countries.
— I know that Oxfam has made public its position in terms of taxes that those who have the most should contribute more. What role do taxes play in this sense of being able to reduce emissions to precisely close this inequality gap, is it possible or is it even a viable tool?
— Most of the tax systems in Latin America are quite regressive as we know, we have been having a discussion about the importance of discussing and applying more progressive tax systems in Latin America, which basically means that whoever has the most, the more they contribute, the most and the best they contribute in terms of taxes, but it's definitely not a magic solution, it's not the only one.
For example, all the discussion that is taking place about the just transition, and particularly in terms of energy and transport, and finally, I would say that this is a discussion about the development model, about the model that we need in Latin America. We continue to rely on a model based on resource extraction, on extreme dependence on international markets for primary goods, for example.
— When we think of the rich, we think of billionaires in the United States, but obviously there are also rich people in Latin America. I understand that the geographical distribution of the rich is also changing, do you consider that if no measures are taken we will see richer Latin Americans with a predominant carbon footprint?
If the metric we use is per decile or in the case of even the richest decile, we manage to separate that 1%. We don't do it nominatively. We have used some examples, such as the one I mentioned today, of some millionaires like Bezos, with regard to the topic of (space) travel and it is an example that has helped us to place in public opinion the impact that these practices have in relation to a certain amount of emissions by the population they have generated.
What I would tell you is that there are countries in Latin America where the inequality gap is particularly expressive and is becoming increasingly important, such as Brazil, Colombia or Mexico, to mention three of the most significant countries in terms of economies in the region, but also in terms of carbon emissions.
So, obviously, if the calculations we are making are true, it is possible that we can appreciate that inequality gap, and the relationship with the emissions of these elites and the responsibility they have for emissions in countries and for the general contribution to global emissions.
Comentarios (0)