this post was submitted on 07 May 2025
430 points (100.0% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

6518 readers
323 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world. About 1C of total warming. Second chart: about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability. Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases. About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
430
World's wealthiest 10% have contributed to two-thirds of global warming since 1990, study finds (phys.org)
submitted 3 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
45 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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,"

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 41 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

For anyone wondering, the wealthiest top 1% alone accounts for one-fifth of warming.

Link to original study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-025-02325-x

Full abstract:

SpoilerClimate injustice persists as those least responsible often bear the greatest impacts, both between and within countries. Here we show how GHG emissions from consumption and investments attributable to the wealthiest population groups have disproportionately influenced present-day climate change. We link emissions inequality over the period 1990–2020 to regional climate extremes using an emulator-based framework. We find that two-thirds (one-fifth) of warming is attributable to the wealthiest 10% (1%), meaning that individual contributions are 6.5 (20) times the average per capita contribution. For extreme events, the top 10% (1%) contributed 7 (26) times the average to increases in monthly 1-in-100-year heat extremes globally and 6 (17) times more to Amazon droughts. Emissions from the wealthiest 10% in the United States and China led to a two- to threefold increase in heat extremes across vulnerable regions. Quantifying the link between wealth disparities and climate impacts can assist in the discourse on climate equity and justice.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That's huge. That means that if you're in the tenth percentile of income/emissions, you might well be emitting less than the global average.

I say this because it's true if you make the assumption of exponential decay. Their data isn't accurate enough to check that assumption, but it's the most parsimonious one, and in this case the function that fits would be:

 E = 29.5 e^(-P*0.36)

Where E is the emission fraction and P is the percentile as an integer. This results in the table below, with the numbers in bold the ones that the function is fit to.

Percentile Emissions fraction Cumulative emissions fraction
1st 20.6% 20.6%
2nd 14.4% 35.0%
3rd 10.0% 45.0%
4th 7.0% 52.0%
5th 4.9% 56.9%
6th 3.4% 60.3%
7th 2.4% 62.7%
8th 1.7% 64.4%
9th 1.2% 65.6%
10th 0.8% 66.4%

Since a percentile is 1% wide, an emission fraction of 0.8% is below the global average.

This assumption doesn't fit with the remaining 90% of the population, but it makes sense that the exponential relationship would slow down as people maintain a "poverty line" minimum footprint. If this consideration already affects the 10th percentile, it's possible the 10th percentile still emits more than the global average.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

(fig.3)