It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


World's richest 1/10 produce 50% carbon emissions; poorest 50% 1/10 carbon emissions

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 08:35 PM
World's richest tenth produce half carbon emissions, poorest half one tenth

LONDON, Dec 2 (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - The richest tenth of the world's people produce half of all carbon emissions, while the poorest half - most threatened by droughts and super storms linked to climate change - produce only one tenth, Oxfam said on Wednesday.

The richest 10 percent have, on average, carbon footprints 11 times that of the poorest 3.5 billion people on the planet, the campaign group said in a report to coincide with talks in Paris this month on a global deal to slow climate change.

One of the biggest obstacles facing negotiators from 195 countries is how to find the billions of dollars needed by developing nations to enable them to stop using fossil fuels and adapt to severe weather shocks caused by climate change.

"Climate change and economic inequality are inextricably linked and together pose one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century," Tim Gore, Oxfam's head of food and climate policy, said in a statement.

"Paris must be the start of building a more human economy for all - not just for the 'haves', the richest and highest emitters, but also the 'have-nots', the poorest people who are the least responsible for and most vulnerable to climate change."

Emissions are rising fastest in developing countries, Oxfam said.

Yet emissions relating to goods and services consumed by the richest citizens in China, India, Brazil and South Africa remain some way behind those of their counterparts in the wealthiest countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), it said.

Oxfam found that India's richest 10 percent use on average just one quarter of the carbon used by the poorest half of the population of the United States.

It also said the total emissions of China's poorest 600 million people - half the country's population - are only one third of the total emissions of the United States' richest 10 percent, some 30 million people.

"Rich, high emitters should be held accountable for their emissions, no matter where they live," Gore said.

"But it's easy to forget that rapidly developing economies are also home to the majority of the world's very poorest people and while they have to do their fair share, it is rich countries that should still lead the way."

Oxfam said a select group of billionaires, who had made many of their fortunes in fossil fuels, were the only people to stand to gain from a weak deal in Paris.

Experts say the world's poorest, regardless of the country they are living in, are often the least prepared in terms of coping with the effects of climate change, and women, especially in rural areas, are the most vulnerable.

A deal in Paris would be by far the strongest ever agreed to bind rich and poor nations to limit greenhouse gas emissions, which scientists say have blanketed the earth, raised global temperatures and begun upending the planet's climate system.

"Any deal must keep alive the possibility of holding global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius, and provide a major boost in funding to help the poorest and most vulnerable communities adapt to climate change," Gore said.

So far, pledges made by 184 countries to curb greenhouse gas emissions beyond 2020, made in the run-up to the Paris summit, are too weak to limit the rise in global temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times.

That is widely viewed as a threshold for dangerous and potentially catastrophic changes in the planet's climate system.

I have often found this to be a conspiracy and even though more studies on the rich should be made into how their decisions affect the environment as a whole...I still believe the wealthy are the biggest polluters. For example...many wealthy have their own private jet or helicopter which pollutes XXXX more than the average car or truck. Who knows how many rich people actually recycle anything they purchase or use in the business they are in? Many I am sure don't have the time or common sense to do such a good deed. The more you have the less you care about the planet until it's too late?

posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 08:43 PM
a reply to: Skywatcher2011

Just an FYI - People on Government Welfare in the United States are considered within the top 10% of income recipients in the world.
edit on 4-12-2015 by infolurker because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 08:48 PM
a reply to: infolurker

This is true...pretty much anyone who has a cushy paycheck and benefits would then be considered a polluter compared to someone on food stamps?

posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 08:53 PM

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: Skywatcher2011

Just an FYI - People on Government Welfare in the United States are considered within the top 10% of income recipients in the world.

Those numbers are about 4,000,000 . That is approx 1.2% of the US population. I do not want to calculate the percentage of US people on welfare vs world population as that number would be very inconsequential . This means that original 50% would not budge even if you included welfare recipients in the US as rich.

posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 08:54 PM
a reply to: Skywatcher2011

It will only be a matter of time before general group dynamics play out.

Lets say there is a group of 100 people stranded on a large island. One person came with all the medicine and guns and distributed them to his nine friends. They then extort the other 90 people by having them do backbreaking labor just for simple things like a Ibuprofen. As this continues, the people don't do anything about it because they have the guns and leverage. Not only do they 10 tyrants do this but they also sabotage every attempt at signalling passing planes for rescue. Then it is discovered they also poured poison into half of the water sources so the people could only get it from them. With the waters poisoned, the animals start dying and soon the entire island is uninhabitable.

We all know that wouldn't happen because, in reality, the other 90 people would remove the 10 by force and start fresh with a functioning community.

On a macro scale, it is no different. We are at that unsustainable stage where the islanders are going to remove the despot leeches from the island. When faced with extinction, people aren't going to let money, power, or authority stand in their way of salvation.

Things will change, one way or the other.

posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 10:01 PM
That sounds about right considering the richest %1 control over half of the wealth. so, basically if we got rid of the richest %1 we could reduce the carbon footprint by at least %50.

posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 10:20 PM
Yeah, let's just ignore the fact that the carbon foot print of the developed world is because we've made our lives easier with things like air condition, refrigeration, TVs, etc. We all need to live in the stone age to save mother GAIA.

posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 12:44 AM
Earth's human population is 7.5 billion. 10% of that number is 750 million or the combined population of the USA, Canada and Europe. The consumption of Earth's resource is usually measured in terms of how many consumer products and food is consumed. That's measured by how much iron, coal (the carbon footprint), water and gasoline is used. They will quote numbers like 1000 gallons of water are required to make a burger, or 10 million gallons of water are required to make a car.

We have cut back on consumption of gasoline and crude oil. That's led to oil prices falling to $45/barrel. But water is recycled. It either is in a closed system in a factory or it is released to flow back into the ocean. So they are measuring the same liter of water many times over.

We just signed many global trade agreements to increase the exchange of money for products. It seems a bit strange to suddenly want to place a tax on this.

posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 01:20 AM
a reply to: Skywatcher2011
You are part of that top 10%. If you earn $1,500 you are in the top 20% of world earners. This has nothing to do with "rich".

posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 01:44 AM
The balance just gets more and more disproportionate the further up the economic food chain you go.

It’s not just because the super-rich own private jets and what not, it’s because they own all the factories, power plants, manufactured goods, etc, they need us little peons to keep consuming “freely”(without conscience) so they get ever richer. No elitist in their right mind would want to tax this system because that slows down overall consumption and less growth makes them poorer in the end, not richer.

Anyway – congrats! You’ve just discovered reason #1 why anthropogenic global warming is in fact a very real problem, and there is actually a conspiracy to deny it, not hoax it.

If you dare tread further down this rabbit hole (most conspiracy theorists here are way too scared to even look), the next important question to ask is: who stands to lose the most from action against global warming, and who stands to gain the most if we just do nothing instead.

HINT: That particular emissions scenario is commonly referred to as “business as usual”. i.e. BIG business, as usual…

So we have an interesting coincidence here. We have a modern economic system increasingly spinning further out of control; where overall wealth is being disproportionately concentrated into fewer and fewer (but bigger and bigger) pockets. This system is absolutely built on unabated, reckless consumption of our resources. Taxing the process only slows it down. In turn, this disproportionate wealth is then intrinsically tied to the little molecules cooking our planet. Both situations call for urgent attention and reform of a very broken system that benefits the few at the expense of the many.

top topics


log in