The carbon emissions of the world’s richest 1 per cent are thought to be the same as poorest two thirds of humanity.
Demands for climate policies targeting the polluting activities of the super-rich are rapidly gaining traction.
Several countries have so far proposed billionaire taxes to raise funds for, among other things, tackling climate change. Earlier this year finance leaders from G20 countries agreed on a wealth tax on the world’s super-rich.
It could raise around €230 billion to tackle causes like climate change and poverty.
Disagreements have been bubbling away under the surface about whether the plan is viable, who would oversee the process, and how to actually introduce a tax on the super-rich.
How high are emissions from the world’s richest people?
New research has shown that the general population finds it hard to estimate exactly how wealth changes people’s carbon footprint. And that could affect their support for climate policies that would tax the highly polluting activities of the super-rich.
So just how vast is the difference in emissions?
An analysis by Oxfam and researchers in the US from November last year looked at the luxury purchases and financial investments of 12 billionaires. It found that they account for almost 17 million tonnes of greenhouse gases each year – the same as 2.1 million average homes or 4.6 coal-fired power plants annually.
Previous research has also shown that the wealthiest 1 per cent of people contribute more emissions than two-thirds of all humanity.
And flying by private jet, according to a study from last year by Green Alliance, releases 10 times more carbon for each passenger than commercial flights. European private jet emissions have soared in recent years, with a 31 per cent increase between 2005 and 2019 – faster than commercial aviation emissions.
How much could a tax on superyachts and private jets raise?
In the UK, fair taxes on superyachts and private jets could have brought in an extra £2 billion (€2.4 billion) last year to help combat the climate crisis, according to Oxfam.
The country has one of the highest number of private flights in Europe, coming second only to France. It is also home to a 450-strong fleet of superyachts.
The charity says that policies like a higher rate of Air Passenger Duty for private jets, a tax on superyacht owners, higher taxes on private jet fuel and taxing take off or landing slots could raise billions.
In Scotland, Oxfam says the government’s planned Air Departure Tax (ADT) with the addition of a new private jet tax would raise enough to fund all-day off-peak rail fares until the end of 2024. The charity says the ADT in its current form can easily be adapted to include private jets.
“While the super-rich continue to pollute at excessive rates, it is people living in poverty – both in the UK and around the world – who have done the least to cause the climate crisis who are suffering the most from its devastating impacts,” says Natalie Shortall, Oxfam GB’s climate justice policy adviser.
“Further steps to better tax extreme wealth are needed to accelerate climate action and fight inequality – increasing taxes on highly polluting luxuries like private jets and superyachts is an obvious place for the Government to start.”
Shortall adds that these are the kind of “common sense solutions” which are needed to reduce emissions and raise crucial climate finance funds by “making the biggest and richest polluters pay”.
People are really bad at estimating carbon footprints
It turns out that people struggle to estimate how wealth impacts personal carbon footprints. This could impact their support for climate policies targeting the wealthy.
To find out just how bad, an international group of researchers led by Copenhagen Business School, the University of Basel and the University of Cambridge surveyed 4,000 people from Denmark, India, Nigeria and the United States.
A vast majority of participants across all four countries overestimated the average personal carbon footprint of the poorest 50 per cent and underestimated those of the richest 10 per cent and 1 per cent. Misperceptions of carbon footprints were found in all socioeconomic groups surveyed.
After learning about actual differences, most participants found the inequality slightly unfair with those in Denmark and the US finding it most unfair.
Participants from the top 10 per cent, however, mostly thought the inequality was fairer than the general population, except those in India.
“This could be because they’re trying to justify their larger carbon footprints,” says co-author of the study Dr Ramit Debnath, assistant professor and Cambridge Zero Fellow at the University of Cambridge.
“These countries are very different, but we found the rich are pretty similar no matter where you go, and their concerns are different to the rest of society.
“There’s a huge contrast between billionaires travelling by private jet while the rest of us drink with soggy paper straws: one of those activities has a big impact on an individual carbon footprint, and one doesn’t.”
How does this underestimation impact support for climate policies?
The team also looked at whether people’s ideas of carbon footprint inequality were related to their support for different climate policies.
In Denmark and Nigeria, they found that people’s underestimations of carbon footprint inequality corresponded with lower support for climate policies like implementing a carbon tax.
“Poorer people have more immediate concerns, such as how they’re going to pay their rent or support their families,” says first author Dr Kristian Steensen Nielsen from Copenhagen Business School.
“But across all income groups, people want real solutions to the climate crisis, whether those are regulatory or technological. However, the people with the highest carbon footprints bear the greatest responsibility for changing their lifestyles and reducing their footprints.”
Because of their greater financial and political influence, Nielsen adds, most climate policies reflect the interests of society’s richest and rarely include fundamental changes to their lifestyles or social status. Greater awareness and discussion of existing inequalities could help build political pressure to address them.
