Carbon Inequality

The facts about carbon inequality are staggering.  This graph shows that the richest 1% emit more than 100 tonnes of CO₂ per person per year, in terms of their household consumption, which is 33 times more than the average person. Their total emissions are greater than those of the poorest half of humanity combined.¹ 

As for the richest 10%, they are responsible for half of all global emissions.  A recent paper in Nature Climate Change finds that, over the period 1990-2020, this group has caused 67% of global warming. 

As a result of their high emissions, the rich are burning through the global carbon budget at a rapid pace. A recent study shows that millionaires alone are on track to burn 72% of the remaining carbon budget for 1.5°C.²

Any policy to achieve rapid emissions reductions must include curtailing the purchasing power of the rich, curtailing their energy use, and curtailing their influence over national policy. 

The data presented above shows emissions from individual consumption. But we also need to account for the fact that the rich control the majority of investment and production.  They determine what gets produced and under what conditions.  Scholars argue that they should therefore be held responsible for emissions from production that they control, given that they have the power to produce differently, such as by using renewable energy, or by investing in less damaging industries.  A recent study by Chancel and Rehm found that the richest 1% in the USA are responsible for about 6% of US consumption emissions.  But if we look at emissions associated with capital ownership, they are responsible for over 40% (bringing them to 27% of total emissions), and the richest 10% are responsible for 70% (51% of total emissions). They find similar results for France and Germany.

Using a similar method, research by Oxfam finds that billionaires are each responsible for over 3 million tonnes of CO₂ per year.³ That's one million times more than the average person in the bottom 90% of humanity.

Chancel and Rehm conclude with the following: "These findings suggest that policies targeting the carbon content of individuals’ assets and investments, rather than focusing only on individual consumption decisions, can be critical to reduce emissions and particularly so at the top of the distribution."

To keep global warming to less than 1.5°C, the world can emit no more than 400 billion tons of CO₂ from 2020 onward.⁴ That means each percentile of the world's population gets to use 4 billion tonnes. This graph shows that the richest 1% have already burned their fair share of the carbon budget six times over. The rest of the top 5% have also exceeded their fair shares. And keep in mind that this is using the standard consumption-based approach, rather than the ownership approach.  The rich are appropriating the atmospheric commons for their own enrichment, depleting the 1.5°C budget, and putting the living world at risk.

If we measure the 1.5°C carbon budget from 1990, the richest 1% have overshot their fair share by a factor of 12 (visible by toggling the graph). 

This data indicates that in addition to pursuing rapid economy-wide decarbonization, there is an urgent need to cut the purchasing power of the rich, which can be done with wealth taxes and maximum income policies.

Class inequalities in terms of emissions vary dramatically by country. The richest 10% in the United States emit more than twice that of their counterparts in the UK, and ten times more than in China. Meanwhile, the bottom 50% in the West emit more than the rich in many global South countries.

It is important to note that working-class emissions are mostly not "lifestyle" emissions but rather the effect of the economic systems in which they live. For instance, if you live in a country that has not invested in public transit and you have to rely on a car to get to work, or if your landlord has not insulated your home, or if the cheapest available food in your neighbourhood is carbon-intensive fast food, your emissions may be high through no fault of your own. This highlights the importance of system-level transformation, not just individual behavior. 

Notes

Suggested citation: Hickel, J., Sullivan, D., & Zoomkawala, H. (2025). “Carbon inequality”, Global Inequality Project. Accessed at: https://globalinequality.org/carbon-inequality

Header image: Marten van Dijk

1. The data represented in the graph comes from the World Inequality Database. For recent published work exploring similar data, see Chancel (2022). A 2023 report published by Oxfam finds that in 2019 the richest 1% were responsible for emissions equivalent to the poorest 66% of humanity (Khalfan et al. 2023).

2. Gössling & Humpe (2023). 

3. Maitland et al. (2022).

4. The 400 Gt carbon budget was established in the IPCC's AR6 report, for a 67% chance of staying under 1.5°C, counting from January 2020.