A groundbreaking study reveals that the richest 10% of the global population have contributed approximately two-thirds of global warming emissions since 1990, highlighting the disproportionate impact of affluent lifestyles on climate change.
Key Points at a Glance
- The wealthiest 10% are responsible for around 65% of global warming emissions since 1990.
- The top 1% and 0.1% contribute 20% and 8% of emissions, respectively.
- If global emissions mirrored those of the poorest 50%, temperature rise since 1990 would have been minimal.
- The study advocates for targeted climate policies, wealth taxes, and increased climate finance to address this imbalance.
A recent study published in Nature Climate Change has unveiled a stark truth about the global climate crisis: the richest 10% of humanity are disproportionately responsible for the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions produced over the last three decades. Researchers from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) have quantified the impact of income inequality on global warming, painting a sobering picture of climate injustice on a planetary scale.
Using wealth-based emissions data integrated into state-of-the-art climate models, the research team analyzed how different income brackets have contributed to anthropogenic climate change since 1990—the year widely recognized as the beginning of consistent global climate policy tracking. The results were staggering: individuals earning over €42,980 annually—just 10% of the global population—were responsible for around 65% of global warming emissions. Even more strikingly, the top 1% and 0.1% alone accounted for 20% and 8% of emissions, respectively.
The disparity is not only statistical—it is moral and systemic. These emissions are not the result of subsistence needs, but of luxury consumption and high-carbon investments. From private aviation and SUV fleets to fossil-fuel-heavy financial portfolios, the carbon-intensive lifestyles of the affluent contrast sharply with the frugality—and environmental vulnerability—of the global poor.
Co-author Carl-Friedrich Schleussner emphasized the urgency of addressing this inequity. If the entire world had emitted greenhouse gases at the rate of the poorest 50%, the total temperature rise since 1990 would have been almost negligible. Instead, the emissions behavior of the top 10% alone would have driven a 2.9°C rise, already beyond the 1.5°C and 2°C targets set by the Paris Agreement. In a hypothetical worst-case scenario, emissions from the top 0.1% would have resulted in a planetary temperature rise of 12.2°C—an outcome that would render much of Earth uninhabitable.
Lead author Sarah Schöngart notes that this is not simply a matter of individual carbon footprints but of systemic economic privilege and responsibility. “Wealth buys not only comfort, but carbon,” she states. “And the climate consequences of that carbon are global, shared most acutely by those least responsible for producing it.”
The policy implications are profound. The study calls for progressive climate measures that move beyond carbon taxes on consumption and address the root of emissions—wealth concentration. This includes taxing investments in carbon-intensive industries, regulating the financial behaviors of the super-rich, and significantly increasing climate finance for low-income nations to adapt and recover from climate-related disasters.
Moreover, the researchers advocate for climate accountability frameworks that are stratified not just by nation, but by wealth group. Current emissions targets and international agreements often treat countries as homogenous actors, ignoring the stark internal divides that exist between wealthy elites and impoverished majorities. By recognizing and targeting the emissions patterns of the ultra-rich within all nations—whether in the Global North or South—climate action can become not only more just but more effective.
Ultimately, the study challenges the widely held notion that climate change is a problem of population growth or collective consumerism. Instead, it highlights that a relatively small group of high-income individuals and institutions bear a vastly outsized responsibility for the state of the planet. In doing so, it reinforces a central but often ignored truth: meaningful climate progress must go hand-in-hand with economic justice and wealth redistribution.
Source: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
