A groundbreaking study has unveiled a stark reality that the wealthiest 10% of Americans are responsible for almost half of the nation’s climate pollution. This alarming statistic is not merely a result of their extravagant lifestyles, marked by sprawling mansions and private jets, but also stems from the fossil fuels generated by the companies in which they invest their vast fortunes.
The research, published on Thursday in the journal PLOS Climate, has called for a radical shift in governmental policies. It urges the abandonment of “regressive” taxes on carbon-intensive consumer goods and emphasizes the need to focus on taxing climate-polluting investments.
Jared Starr, a sustainability scientist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and one of the report’s authors, eloquently expressed the urgency of the situation. “Global warming can be this huge, overwhelming, nebulous thing happening in the world, and you feel like you’ve got no agency over it. You kind of know that you’re contributing to it in some way, but it’s really not clear or quantifiable,” he said.
The study’s methodology involved analyzing extensive datasets spanning three decades, connecting financial transactions to carbon pollution. By examining the emissions produced by companies’ direct operations and their climate impacts further down the supply chain, the researchers were able to calculate a carbon footprint for each dollar of economic activity in the US.
The findings were staggering. Households making more than $178,000 were found to be responsible for 40% of the nation’s human-caused, planet-heating pollution. Even more astonishingly, the income of the top 1% alone – those earning over $550,000 – was linked to 15% to 17% of this pollution.
The report also spotlighted the so-called “super-emitters,” almost exclusively among the wealthiest top 0.1% of Americans. Concentrated in industries like finance, insurance, and mining, these individuals produce around 3,000 tons of carbon pollution annually. To put this into perspective, it’s estimated that individuals should limit their carbon footprint to around 2.3 tons a year to combat climate change effectively.
“Fifteen days of income for a top 0.1% household generates as much carbon pollution as a lifetime of income for a household in the bottom 10%,” Starr emphasized.
The study also highlighted the disparity in climate impact between different industries. For instance, a household earning $980,000 from fossil fuel industries would be classified as a super-emitter, while a household earning from the hospital industry would need to make $11 million to produce the same amount of planet-heating pollution, as reported by CNN.
The authors of the report have made a compelling case for policymakers to rethink their approach to climate crisis taxation. Current carbon taxes, focusing on consumer goods like food, cars, and clothing, were criticized by Starr for “disproportionately punishing the poor while having little impact on the extremely wealthy.” The report advocates for taxes targeting shareholders and carbon-intensive investments, although Starr acknowledged that this would be “a hard political ask.”
The study has resonated with experts in the field. Kimberly Nicholas, associate professor of sustainability science at Lund University in Sweden, praised the research for revealing how closely income, especially from investments, is tied to planet-heating pollution.
The implications of this study extend far beyond the borders of the United States. Globally, the pollution produced by billionaires is a million times higher than the average person outside the world’s wealthiest 10%, as per a report last year from the nonprofit Oxfam.
The findings of this study are a clarion call for a fundamental change in the way our economy operates. “At the moment, the way the economy works is that it takes money and turns it into climate pollution that is destabilizing life on Earth,” Nicholas concluded. “And that fundamentally has to change.”
