Climate inequality is a glaring reality: No regressive burdens please

livemint.com:

how to distribute finances from wealthy countries, which have been responsible for the vast majority of carbon emissions, to vulnerable nations that are bearing the brunt of their impact. Although those negotiations will be vital for a just transition to a decarbonized global economy, socioeconomic inequalities within borders should receive equal attention.

A recent report from Oxfam and the Stockholm Environment Institute explored the idea of carbon inequality, and came up with the figure that the richest 1% of the global population pollutes just as much as the poorest 66%. It also found that most of the inequality in emissions is now due to differences within countries rather than between them.

Oxfam’s figures have been criticized for relying on imperfect assumptions: The authors allocate national consumption emissions to individuals within each country based on a functional relationship between income and emissions, rather than actual consumption. But whether or not the exact numbers are right, the basic premise is backed by multiple studies that have linked higher expenditure (which tends to increase with income) with more direct emissions (such as more flights and bigger cars) and indirect emissions (those embedded in goods).

Unless a billionaire is lives self-sufficiently in an off-grid hut and refuses to fly, you can bet she has a higher carbon footprint than people on the breadline. I’d argue it almost doesn’t matter what our relative footprints look like—though they do help make the argument that the very wealthy should pay their dues, which I believe they should—because a key problem is that climate change is regressive, affecting the poorest the most.