arbon emissions of richest 1 per cent surged to 16 per cent of world’s total CO2 emissions in 2019 - enough to cause 1.3 million excess deaths due to heat
The richest 1 per cent of the world’s population produced as much carbon pollution in 2019 as the five billion people who made up the poorest two-thirds of humanity, according to a report published by Oxfam today ahead of the UN Climate Summit, COP28.
The report, Climate Equality: A Planet for the 99%, is based on research with the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). It assesses the consumption emissions of different income groups, highlighting the stark gap between the carbon footprints of the super-rich —whose carbon-hungry lifestyles and investments in polluting industries like fossil fuels are driving global warming— and the rest of the world.
The study shows there is also vast inequality in how the impacts of the rapidly changing climate are felt. It is people living in poverty; marginalised groups such as women and Indigenous Peoples; and low-income countries, who have done the least to cause it, who are suffering the worst consequences – and who are least able to respond or recover.
With climate change driving a rise in world temperatures, deaths from heat are set to increase dramatically, particularly in low-income countries. The report reveals the outsized emissions of the richest 1 per cent will cause 1.3 million heat-related excess deaths - roughly equivalent to the population of Dublin - with most of these deaths occurring between 2020 and 2030.
Chiara Liguori, Oxfam’s Senior Climate Justice Policy Advisor said: “The super-rich are plundering and polluting the planet to the point of destruction and it is those who can least afford it who are paying the highest price. The huge scale of climate inequality revealed in the report highlights how the two crises are inextricably linked - fuelling one another - and the urgent need to ensure the rising costs of climate change fall on those most responsible and able to pay.
“The gap between the super-rich and the rest of us is stark. It would take about 1,500 years for someone in the bottom 99 per cent to produce as much carbon as the richest billionaires do in a year. This is fundamentally unfair.
“Governments globally, including the UK, need to tackle the twin crises of inequality and climate change, by targeting the excessive emissions of the super-rich by taxing them more. This would raise much needed revenue that could be directed to a range of vital social spending needs, including a fair switch to clean, renewable energy as well as fulfilling our international commitments to support communities who are already bearing the brunt of the climate crisis.”
Key findings from the report also show:
The richest 1 per cent (77 million people) were responsible for 16 per cent of global consumption emissions in 2019 —more than all car and road transport emissions. The richest 10 per cent accounted for half (50 per cent) of emissions.
It would take about 1,500 years for someone in the bottom 99 per cent to produce as much carbon as the richest billionaires do in a year.
Since the 1990s, the richest 1 per cent have burned through more than twice as much carbon as the bottom half of humanity.
The carbon emissions of the richest 1 per cent are set to be 22 times greater than the level compatible with the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement in 2030. By contrast, the emissions of the poorest half of the global population are set to remain at one-fifth of the 1.5°C compatible level.
Every year, the emissions of the richest 1 per cent cancel out the carbon savings coming from nearly one million wind turbines.
The death toll from floods is seven times higher in the most unequal countries compared to more equal ones...
October 17, 2023 By Oxfam
Financial institution must divest from fossil fuels to align with Biden administration’s climate policy goals
As mounting climate concerns cause extreme weather events, & global efforts intensify to keep warming below 1.5°C, Oxfam calls on the Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM) to cease funding fossil fuel projects to instead champion just & clean energy initiatives.
In a new research report published today, “Alignment of the United States Export-Import Bank with the US climate & development policy objectives,” Oxfam America & Perspectives Climate Research found that EXIM has financed hundreds of fossil fuel projects globally since its founding & continues to finance the most climate damaging sectors: at least 60% of its current $40+ billion portfolio directly supports fossil fuel-producing or dependent sectors like oil, gas, & aviation.
Despite a requirement in its charter to devote 5% of its funding to renewable energy, energy efficiency, & storage, in 2021, only $72 million – or 1.25% of EXIM’s new authorizations – were considered environmentally beneficial, & only 0.2% were for renewable energies.
“EXIM has long dragged its feet on shifting its portfolio to support the energy transition that the US needs, both to remain competitive in the global economy & to stop locking in dirty fossil fuel infrastructure propelling the world to climate catastrophe,” said Daniel Mulé, Oxfam America’s Policy & Program Manager for Just Energy Transition & Extractives. “As countries worldwide rise to meet the challenges of the climate crisis, our American institutions must follow suit.”
EXIM’s trajectory also runs counter to the Biden Administration’s climate goals & leaves the US trailing behind international counterparts like European export credit agencies (ECAs). Denmark’s ECA, for example, has been supporting renewable energies with at least $1 billion, or 75% of its portfolio, every year since 2015.
“Taking the energy transition seriously & fully aligning EXIM with the US climate commitments would be a clear win-win situation for Democrats & Republicans, for exporters & foreign buyers, as well as for present & future generations,” said report co-author Igor Shishlov, Head of Climate Finance at Perspectives Climate Research.
“Phasing out support of the fossil fuel industries & supporting renewables would greatly boost the competitiveness of American clean tech companies, bolster the role of the US as a leader in the global transition towards clean energy, & lead to more & better paying jobs for Americans in the clean energy sector.”
Published: 7th November 2022
Billionaire investments in polluting industries such as fossil fuels and cement double the average for the Standard and Poor group of 500 companies – Oxfam
The investments of just 125 billionaires emit 393 million tonnes of CO2e each year – the equivalent of France – at an individual annual average that is a million times higher than someone in the bottom 90 percent of humanity.
Carbon Billionaires: The investment emissions of the world’s richest people, is a report published by Oxfam today based on a detailed analysis of the investments of 125 of the richest billionaires in some of the world's biggest corporates and the carbon emissions of these investments. These billionaires have a collective $2.4 trillion stake in 183 companies.
The report finds that these billionaires’ investments give an annual average of 3m tonnes of CO2e per person, which is a million times higher than 2.76 tonnes of CO2e which is the average for those living in the bottom 90 percent.
The actual figure is likely to be higher still, as published carbon emissions by corporates have been shown to systematically underestimate the true level of carbon impact, and billionaires and corporates who do not publicly reveal their emissions, so could not be included in the research, are likely to be those with a high climate impact.
“These few billionaires together have ‘investment emissions’ that equal the carbon footprints of entire countries like France, Egypt or Argentina,” said Nafkote Dabi, Climate Change Lead at Oxfam “The major and growing responsibility of wealthy people for overall emissions is rarely discussed or considered in climate policy making. This has to change. These billionaire investors at the top of the corporate pyramid have huge responsibility for driving climate breakdown. They have escaped accountability for too long,” said Dabi.
“Emissions from billionaire lifestyles, their private jets and yachts are thousands of times the average person, which is already completely unacceptable. But if we look at emissions from their investments, then their carbon emissions are over a million times higher,” said Dabi.
Contrary to average people, studies show the world's wealthiest individuals' investments account for up to 70 percent of their emissions. Oxfam has used public data to calculate the "investment emissions" of billionaires with over 10 percent stakes in a corporation, by allocating them a share of the reported emissions of the corporates in which they are invested in proportion to their stake.
The study also found billionaires had an average of 14 percent of their investments in polluting industries such as energy and materials like cement. This is twice the average for investments in the Standard and Poor 500. Only one billionaire in the sample had investments in a renewable energy company.
“We need COP27 to expose and change the role that big corporates and their rich investors are playing in profiting from the pollution that is driving the global climate crisis,” said Dabi. “They can’t be allowed to hide or greenwash. We need governments to tackle this urgently by publishing emission figures for the richest people, regulating investors and corporates to slash carbon emissions and taxing wealth and polluting investments.”
The choice of investments billionaires make is shaping the future of our economy, for example, by backing high carbon infrastructure – locking in high emissions for decades to come. The study found that if the billionaires in the sample moved their investments to a fund with stronger environmental and social standards, it could reduce the intensity of their emissions by up to four times...
In 2009, high-income countries committed in the Copenhagen Accords to mobilize US$100 billion a year by 2020 in climate finance for low- and middle-income countries. Oxfam reported on the progress of this commitment in 2016, 2018 and 2020. This year’s report finds that high-income countries have not only failed to deliver on their commitment, but also – as in previous years – generous accounting practices have allowed them to overstate the level of support they have actually provided. Moreover, much of the finance has been provided as loans, which means that it risks increasing the debt burden of the countries it is supposed to help.
This paper calls on high-income countries to accelerate the mobilization and provision of climate finance, and to make up the shortfall from previous years, in a way that is equitable and just. High-income countries must provide finance that is transparent, with genuine accountability mechanisms, and that allows for far more local ownership and responsiveness to the needs of communities it is intended to reach. People on the frontlines of the climate crisis must have the funding they were promised for adaptation and mitigation, and to address the loss and damage they are already experiencing as a result of climate impacts.
Keywords
Climate change adaptation
Climate change mitigation
Climate finance
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Paris Agreement
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
Additional details
Author(s)
Zagema, Bertram
Kowalzig, Jan
Walsh, Lyndsay
Hattle, Andrew
Roy, Christopher
Dejgaard, Hans Peter
Publisher(s)
Oxfam International
DOI
10.21201/2023.621500
How to cite this resource
Citation styles vary so we recommend you check what is appropriate for your context. You may choose to cite Oxfam resources as follows:
Author(s)/Editor(s). (Year of publication). Title and sub-title. Place of publication: name of publisher. DOI (where available). URL
A group of civil society organisations from across the world called on the International Monetary Fund to include anti-corruption measures in all its COVID-19 related emergency funding.
The 99 organisations added that the IMF must take tangible actions to help protect and empower civil society groups to monitor these funds. Among the organisations to sign the letter are Human Rights Watch, Oxfam, Freedom House, and Africa Network for Environment and Economic Justice (ANEEJ).
The IMF has approved nearly $18 billion in emergency financing to more than 65 countries and is considering requests from several others to help governments whose economies are suffering from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Of the total amount so far, more than half of the emergency financing has been approved for 24 African countries to help governments. Nigeria, Ghana and Kenya are among the biggest recipients of the funding.
Citizens across Africa greeted the news of the approval of millions of dollars in emergency funding to their countries with derision and skepticism as they have very little faith that the funds will be used for their intended purposes.
Corruption hinders Africa’s economic and social growth, keeping millions of people in poverty and frightening off investors. Though it is not a unique phenomenon to the continent, it is admittedly a huge problem.
The organizations said that while there was urgency to provide funding to assist governments in their response, there was a greater need to ensure that the funds were channeled to their desired functions and were not misused.
“As organizations that closely monitor corruption and its impacts, we also know that transparency and accountability are key to making sure the money the IMF is disbursing actually goes to protecting lives and livelihoods,” the letter said in part.
The organizations also raised concerns that most IMF loan agreements include few or no government commitments to reduce the risk of corruption and instead appeared to rely on the good faith of governments and vigilance of independent monitoring groups.
While citing Gabon as an example of a nation that committed to addressing transparency and anti-corruption measures, the organizations urged the IMF to apply robust measures consistently to all emergency funding.
Some of the measures include receiving all emergency funds in a single account with the Treasury, publishing a procurement plan and agreeing to an independent audit within six months of receiving the funds.
The IMF was also cautioned that it would be unwise for it to rely on civil society groups to monitor such funds without addressing issues that affect their operations and effectiveness.
“Many of our groups work in countries where government spending is opaque, auditors do not exist or are not independent, and authorities do not tolerate criticism. Even where they can operate safely, many groups lack the technical capacity and resources to effectively monitor the billions of dollars in funding that the IMF is disbursing,” the letter said.
It’s been revealed that Rockstar Games was hacked by a teenager using an Amazon Firestick, a hotel TV and a mobile phone.
Last September, over 90 videos and screenshots from Grand Theft Auto 6 surfaced online ahead of the game’s public reveal.
Rockstar Games confirmed the “early development footage” had been “illegally accessed and downloaded”. Later that month, a teenager in Oxfordshire was arrested in relation to the hack.
In July, it was confirmed that 18-year-old Arion Kurtaj would face 12 offences, including six charges under the Computer Misuse Act, three blackmail charges, and two counts of fraud but was deemed “unfit” to stand trial.
Earlier this week, Kurtaj was sentenced to an “indefinite hospital order” with a judge ruling that his skills and desire to commit cyber-crime meant he remained a high risk to the public (via BBC). He will remain at a secure hospital until he is no longer deemed a danger. His involvement as a key member of international “digital bandit” crime gang Lapsus$ was also confirmed.
Kurtaj was sentenced alongside a seventeen-year-old accomplice, with the Lapsus$ members involved in the $4million (£3.1million) ransom of data stolen from Nvidia and BT/EE.
During court proceedings, further details about Kurtaj’s crimes were revealed. The jury was told that Kurtaj was in police protection at a Travelodge hotel when he hacked Rockstar. At the time, he was on bail for hacking both Nvidia and BT/EE. Police had confiscated his laptop, but Kurtaj managed to steal 90 clips of Grand Theft Auto 6 using an Amazon Firestick, his hotel TV and a mobile phone.
He used Rockstar’s internal Slack channel to blackmail the company before sharing clips and the source code online, via the username TeaPotUberHacker.
Despite his defence lawyer arguing that the huge success of Grand Theft Auto 6’s reveal earlier this year meant that Kurtaj’s crimes had little impact, Rockstar claimed his actions had cost the company over $5million (£3.95million) as well as thousands of hours of labour.
Grand Theft Auto 6 is set to launch 2025 for PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X/S and will see players return to world of Vice City.
In other news, Bethesda Softworks has shared its 2024 plans for Fallout 76, with a string of updates introducing seasonal events alongside new quests, maps and rewards.
American researchers concealed their intention to conduct high-risk coronavirus research in Wuhan under lax safety standards from the Pentagon the year before the COVID-19 pandemic, according to documents obtained by U.S. Right to Know.
A 2018 grant proposal called Project DEFUSE, coauthored by the Wuhan Institute of Virology & American scientists, has stoked concern that the pandemic resulted from a lab accident.
It proposed engineering high-risk coronaviruses of the same species as SARS & SARS-CoV-2. Most worrying to some scientists: The proposal involved synthesizing spike proteins w/ furin cleavage sites — the same feature that supercharged SARS-CoV-2 into the most infectious pandemic pathogen in a century. Indeed, some scientists have likened DEFUSE to a blueprint for generating SARS-CoV-2 in the lab.
New documents obtained by U.S. Right to Know now show that these experiments were proposed to occur in part in Wuhan w/ fewer safety precautions than required in the U.S. — apparently to save on costs. American scientists @ the center of the “lab leak theory” controversy appear to have concealed this from their desired funder — the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency — in order to evade any national security concerns about doing high-level biosecurity work in China.
The documents call into question the credibility of these scientists’ assurances that the pandemic could not have sprung out of their collaboration on coronavirus engineering research w/ the lab in Wuhan.
U.S. Right to Know has obtained an early draft of DEFUSE w/ comments from “PD” & “BRS.” Emails show these commenters to be “Peter Daszak” & “Baric, Ralph S.”
Daszak leads EcoHealth Alliance, an organization that discovers novel viruses. Baric helms a University of North Carolina lab w/ a focus on coronaviruses. Both Daszak & Baric have worked w/ the Wuhan Institute of Virology on gain-of-function research making coronaviruses more deadly or infectious.
The formal DEFUSE grant proposal states that Baric in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, will engineer the coronavirus spike proteins & test their ability to infect human cells.
But in a comment on an early draft of the proposal, Daszak clarifies that the Wuhan Institute of Virology will in fact do much of this work, but that this is excluded from the formal proposal to make DARPA “comfortable.” The comment is addressed to Baric & Wuhan Institute of Virology Senior Scientist Zhengli Shi.
“Ralph, Zhengli. If we win this contract, I do not propose that all of this work will necessarily be conducted by Ralph, but I do want to stress the US side of this proposal so that DARPA are comfortable w/ our team,” Daszak wrote. “Once we get the funds, we can then allocate who does what exact work, & I believe that a lot of these assays can be done in Wuhan as well…”
In another comment, Daszak said that he sought to “downplay the non-US focus of this proposal” to DARPA by not highlighting the involvement of the Chinese researchers, Shi & Duke-NUS Medical School Professor Linfa Wang.
EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak
“I’m planning to use my resume & Ralph’s,” Daszak wrote. “Linfa/Zhengli, I realize your resumes are also very impressive, but I’m trying to downplay the non-US focus of this proposal so that DARPA doesn’t see this as a negative.”
In addition to the national security risks, conducting coronavirus engineering & testing work in Wuhan entailed greater biosafety risks, the American researchers privately acknowledged.
The Wuhan Institute of Virology has conducted research on SARS-related coronaviruses like SARS-CoV-2 in biosafety level two (BSL-2) conditions. Biosafety levels range from one (BSL-1) to four (BSL-4), w/ BSL-4 being the most stringent.
BSL-2 labs involve ventilated biosafety cabinets, w/ researchers in surgical masks & lab coats. Many scientists say viruses that may be transmitted through the air should @ minimum be studied in BSL-3 conditions...
Meta has laid out plans for political advertising in 2024, as some of the world's biggest democracies — including the United States, India, Indonesia, Mexico, and the European Union — are set to hold elections.
On Wednesday, the tech giant revealed its blueprint for the upcoming elections, which remains largely consistent with previous years. Nick Clegg, president of global affairs at Meta, announced in a blog post that this includes the blocking of new political ads one week before U.S. voters go to the polls in Nov. 2024. Clegg also referred to the $20 billion the company has invested in safety and security for global elections since 2016, writing, "No tech company does more or invests more to protect elections online than Meta — not just during election periods but at all times."
Meta also said it has identified over 700 hate groups from around the world, of which 400 are white supremacist organizations, in an effort to fight interference operations and harassment.
A key difference, however, will be seen in the face of consumer-generated AI content. Earlier this month, Meta announced that it will require political advertisers to disclose AI-generated content posted to Facebook and Instagram. This pertains to any image, footage or audio that is "digitally created or altered" to depicting something or someone that did not truly occur or exist. Meta's policy will apply to all social issues, electoral, or political advertisements, globally.
Political advertising on Meta's platforms has and continues to be a contentious matter. During previous elections, accusations of rampant misinformation — and a clear failure to block said misinformation — have tainted Meta's self-declared reputation of prioritising the protection of elections online. Globally, the company has been accused of charging less to certain parties than others for advertising, including India's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. In 2020, the U.S. Federal Election Commissioner criticized Facebook's permittance of political ads, saying, "The company has no idea how seriously it is hurting democracy."
With elections being held in several nations in 2024, Meta has reiterated its approach to tackling electoral misinformation, and how it’s looking to combat new elements, like generative AI, in regards to how it can be used to mislead voters.
Meta’s President of Global Affairs Nick Clegg, a former UK Minister himself, has provided an overview of three key elements in Meta’s updated civic protection approach, which he believes will be critical within the coming election cycles in various nations.
Those three focal elements are:
Political advertisers will have to disclose when they use AI or other digital techniques to create or alter a political or social issue ad. Meta unveiled this policy earlier in the month, with Clegg reiterating that this will be a requirement, with effective penalties if political advertisers fail to do so.
Meta will block new political, electoral and social issue ads during the final week of the U.S. election campaign. Meta implemented this rule in 2020, in order to stop campaigns from making claims that may be uncontestable, given the time frame. This is critical in relation to the first point, because while Meta does have penalties for deepfakes, a campaign may be willing to risk such, if it could help to seed doubt about an opponent, particularly in the final days leading into a poll.
Meta will continue to combat hate speech and Coordinated Inauthentic Behavior, which has been a key focus for its moderation teams. Meta will continue to remove the worst examples, while also labeling updates from state-controlled media, to ensure more transparency in political messaging.
Clegg has also underlined Meta’s expanding, and unmatched moderation effort, which has been increased significantly over time, especially around political influence and interference.
“No tech company does more or invests more to protect elections online than Meta – not just during election periods but at all times. We have around 40,000 people working on safety and security, with more than $20 billion invested in teams and technology in this area since 2016. We’ve also built the largest independent fact-checking network of any platform, with nearly 100 partners around the world to review and rate viral misinformation in more than 60 languages.”
in some ways, this feels like a direct response to X, which, under owner Elon Musk, has eschewed modern approaches to content moderation, in favor of leaning into the wisdom of the crowd, in order, according to Musk at least, to bring more universal, unfiltered truth, and let the people decide, as opposed to social media executives, what is and is not correct.
That approach is likely to become more problematic during election cycles, with X already coming under fire for failing to address problematic posts that have led to civil unrest.
In this respect, Meta’s taking more direct accountability, which some will also view as corporate censorship, but after it was widely blamed for swaying voter actions in the 2016 election, Meta’s processes are now much more solidified and reinforced based around what it, and others, have assessed is the best practice approach.
And Meta’s systems will be tested again in the new year, which will raise more questions around the influence of social platforms in this respect, and the capacity for anyone to amplify their messaging via social apps.
Meta’s hoping that its years of preparation will enable it to facilitate more relevant discussion, without manipulation of its tools.
Next year, more than two billion people will head to the polls in elections across some of the world’s biggest democracies, including the United States, India, Indonesia, Mexico and the European Union. Over many years, Meta has developed a comprehensive approach for elections on our platforms. With so many important elections approaching, we are setting out how the policies and safeguards we have established over time will apply in 2024.
No tech company does more or invests more to protect elections online than Meta – not just during election periods but at all times. We have around 40,000 people working on safety and security, with more than $20 billion invested in teams and technology in this area since 2016. While much of our approach has remained consistent for some time, we’re continually adapting to ensure we are on top of new challenges, including the use of AI. We’ve also built the largest independent fact-checking network of any platform, with nearly 100 partners around the world to review and rate viral misinformation in more than 60 languages.
This approach is consistent with how we have sought to prevent abuse of our platforms during recent major elections in Nigeria, Thailand, Turkey and Argentina, and this year’s state and local elections in the US. While we are conscious that every election brings its own challenges and complexities, we’re confident our comprehensive approach puts us in a strong position to protect the integrity of next year’s elections on our platforms.
Industry-Leading Transparency Around Political Ads
Since 2018, we have provided industry-leading transparency for ads about social issues, elections or politics. Advertisers who run these ads are required to complete an authorization process and include a “paid for by” disclaimer. These ads are then stored in our publicly available Ad Library for seven years. For example, there are now more than 15 million US entries in our Ad Library.
Starting in the new year, advertisers will also have to disclose when they use AI or other digital techniques to create or alter a political or social issue ad in certain cases. This applies if the ad contains a photorealistic image or video, or realistic sounding audio, that was digitally created or altered to depict a real person as saying or doing something they did not say or do. It also applies if an ad depicts a realistic-looking person that does not exist or a realistic-looking event that did not happen, alters footage of a real event, or depicts a realistic event that allegedly occurred, but that is not a true image, video, or audio recording of the event.
As in previous years, we will also block new political, electoral and social issue ads during the final week of the US election campaign. Ads that have previously run before this restriction period will be allowed to run during this time. Our rationale for this restriction period remains the same as it has since 2020: in the final days of an election, we recognize there may not be enough time to contest new claims made in ads. This restriction period will lift the day after the election. You can find more details of our approach to the 2024 US Presidential election in this fact sheet.
Preventing Election and Voter Interference
We continually review and update our election-related policies, and take action if content violates our Community Standards, including our policies on election and voter interference, hate speech, coordinating harm and publicizing crime, and bullying and harassment. We remove this content whether it was created by a person or AI.
Our teams fight both foreign interference and domestic influence operations, and have taken down more than 200 malicious influence campaigns involved in what we call Coordinated Inauthentic Behavior. We’ve also designated more than 700 hate groups around the world – including more than 400 white supremacist organizations – and we continue to identify and assess new hate groups...
How could you ever regain credibility after you de-platformed a US President and many of his supporters? If that’s not election interference I don’t know what is.
I’m not saying Trump is a nice guy, or that we should vote for him, but I believe the best way to expose a bad actor is with disinfecting sunlight, as opposed to martyrdom.
The richest 1 per cent of the world’s population produced as much carbon pollution in 2019 as the five billion people who made up the poorest two-thirds of humanity, according to a report published by Oxfam today ahead of the UN Climate Summit, COP28.
The report, Climate Equality: A Planet for the 99%, is based on research with the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). It assesses the consumption emissions of different income groups, highlighting the stark gap between the carbon footprints of the super-rich —whose carbon-hungry lifestyles and investments in polluting industries like fossil fuels are driving global warming— and the rest of the world.
The study shows there is also vast inequality in how the impacts of the rapidly changing climate are felt. It is people living in poverty; marginalised groups such as women and Indigenous Peoples; and low-income countries, who have done the least to cause it, who are suffering the worst consequences – and who are least able to respond or recover.
With climate change driving a rise in world temperatures, deaths from heat are set to increase dramatically, particularly in low-income countries. The report reveals the outsized emissions of the richest 1 per cent will cause 1.3 million heat-related excess deaths - roughly equivalent to the population of Dublin - with most of these deaths occurring between 2020 and 2030.
Chiara Liguori, Oxfam’s Senior Climate Justice Policy Advisor said: “The super-rich are plundering and polluting the planet to the point of destruction and it is those who can least afford it who are paying the highest price. The huge scale of climate inequality revealed in the report highlights how the two crises are inextricably linked - fuelling one another - and the urgent need to ensure the rising costs of climate change fall on those most responsible and able to pay.
“The gap between the super-rich and the rest of us is stark. It would take about 1,500 years for someone in the bottom 99 per cent to produce as much carbon as the richest billionaires do in a year. This is fundamentally unfair.
“Governments globally, including the UK, need to tackle the twin crises of inequality and climate change, by targeting the excessive emissions of the super-rich by taxing them more. This would raise much needed revenue that could be directed to a range of vital social spending needs, including a fair switch to clean, renewable energy as well as fulfilling our international commitments to support communities who are already bearing the brunt of the climate crisis.”
Key findings from the report also show: