Wealth and Climate Change

The following table summarising the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the wealthiest 1% of the population compared to the poorest 50% in each of the OECD countries was generated in July 2023 by Bard AI using data from Oxfam. It is important to note that these figures only represent greenhouse gas emissions from consumption. They do not include emissions from production, such as emissions from the manufacture of goods and services. It is contended that, if production emissions were included, the disparity would be even greater.

Carbon Inequality

As you can see, the wealthiest 1% of the population in OECD countries emit significantly more greenhouse gases per capita than the poorest 50%. In the United States, the wealthiest 1% emit 260 tons of greenhouse gases per capita, compared to just 10 tons for the poorest 50%. This disparity is even more pronounced in other countries, such as Norway, where the wealthiest 1% emit 190 tons of greenhouse gases per capita, compared to just 3 tons for the poorest 50%.

This data suggests that the wealthiest 1% of the population are a major contributor to climate change pollution on a per-capita basis. Individually, they are emitting significantly more greenhouse gases per capita than the poorest 50%, and they are doing so through their consumption of goods and services.? 

It is essential that the wealthy reduce their GHG emissions if we are to address the climate crisis. This is because the poorer sectors of an economy are already producing far lower GHG emissions per capita, which means the scope for further reductions is limited. Not only are emission reductions among the less wealthy starting from a lower ceiling, the GHG they do produce is from consumption of a higher proportion of essential goods and services, i.e. consumption that is essential for a reasonable life. Added to that, the less well-off an individual is, the fewer options they have for choosing low-GHG goods and services because, regardless of personal wishes, they are forced to make their decisions based on price rather than what they perceive to be the right choice. 

What can be done

Of course, we all should make what changes we can, but without significant change from the richest sections of society, our impact on GHG reduction will be small. But it is not just down to individuals to make the necessary changes. 

 References / Further reading

Confronting Carbon Inequality - Oxfam

Do volcanoes contribute to a heating climate?

Why I'm asking 

Over on Twitter, someone complained that I shouldn't be moaning about farmers contributing to climate change. I should be worrying about increased volcanism, because this was a much bigger problem for global warming. So I thought I'd check my facts.

I put the question to my Microsoft friend, Bing and it pointed me to the US Geological Service, which had this to say.

In a Nutshell

The USGS provided some interesting facts:

• Volcanoes do have an influence on climate change.
• Ash from volcanoes has little impact on climate change because they stay in the atmosphere for a short time; days to weeks.
• Volcanic gasses such as sulphur dioxide can cause global cooling.
• Volcanic carbon dioxide can potentially contribute to global warming.

So, we can discount ash as a problem for climate either way, but what about sulphur dioxide and carbon dioxide?

Sulphur Dioxide

Sulphur dioxide has the biggest impact on climate because it is quickly converted to sulphuric acid, which then condenses into sulphate aerosols in the stratosphere. These fine particles are reflective, resulting in more of the Sun's heat being reflected back into space and resulting in cooling of the atmosphere beneath.

In 1991 Mount Pinatubo in the Phillipines erupted, putting out the biggest sulphur dioxide cloud in living memory. This lowered the global temperature for three years, by up to about half a degree Celsius.

Carbon Dioxide

Volcanoes can indeed emit significant amounts of carbon dioxide. Mount St Helens in the USA emitted about 10,000,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide in 9 hours when it erupted in 1980. This seems like a lot, but it takes mankind only 2.5 hours to do the same. 

While large scale eruptions are noteworthy, they are intermittent, whereas our carbon dioxide emissions go on continuously. Scientists estimated that, in one year, mankind would cause carbon dioxide emissions 80 to 270 times greater than all the Earth's volcanoes combined.

Conclusion

I think you know where this is heading.

• Throughout history, mankind has only observed widespread cooling as a result of vulcanism.
• The mechanism for this is sulphate aerosols in the stratosphere reflecting the Sun's heat back into space.
• Volcanic carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, but its effect is overridden by the stronger effects of the sulphur dioxide.
• The amount of carbon dioxide emitted by volcanoes is very small compared to that emitted by human activities.

So no, volcanoes do not contribute significantly to a heating climate. Current evidence suggests the reverse. Volcanism generally results in a short term cooling effect.

Other reading:

Eos, Vol. 92, No. 24, 14 June 2011 - Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide 

Climate Change - It's Not All or Nothing

 

Polarized Views

Social media posts about the environment more often than not advocate one or other extreme view depending on the which side of the divide the poster sits. We are either told "Stop worrying. It's all a hoax and there is no need to change anything" or, "Stop (insert: burning fossil fuel, dairy, eating meat, using plastic, deforestation, etc. as you choose)  immediately, or we are all doomed!"

Both of these polarized positions are unhelpful in a debate about the environment because, as well as probably being untenable, they turn off a large proportion of the population, preventing them from taking any action at all. If we have an all or nothing viewpoint and discover all or nothing is impossible, we tend to switch off and not consider the "more or less" possibility.

We need to think of most environmental problems and solutions, not from either side of a divide, but as a position on a continuum. Depending on your own circumstances, it simply may not be possible to stop doing something environmentally harmful. However, you may be able to take action to reduce or mitigate that harm. Your pragmatic action to reduce harm sits somewhere on a continuum between doing nothing and preventing the harm altogether. And those smaller steps add up to significant change, even if not meeting the ideal.

Measure results and Enjoy Your Success

Use the Right Scale

One of the problems about taking these small steps is that they seem insignificant on the global scale, so we tend to be discouraged. Sometimes, to motivate ourselves to take positive steps we need to think on the micro, local scale rather than the macro, global scale. Here is an example from my own life. 

An Example

The environmental effects of modern transport are huge factor affecting the global environment, including climate change. In 2014 I got to thinking about what we could do to minimize our personal contribution to the problem.  Not having personal long-range transport wasn't a viable option, so what to do?

Our faithful old Nissan Maxima was getting a little the worse for wear. We replaced it with a new Hyundai Accent, bearing in mind our current and future needs, along with the environmental and economic benefits of a smaller car. This resulted in a reduction of fuel consumption from about 12 to 6.7 litres/100km. If my maths are correct, that is a 44% reduction in consumption and in emissions! On a global scale, that change is immeasurably small, but at the personal level, we feel justified in giving ourselves a pat on the back and have been encouraged to see what other steps we can take to leave a lighter footprint. It all adds up.

My first point is that the big problem is so daunting that we are inclined to give up and do nothing. By focusing down to the personal level, we are encouraged to take steps because the effects of the changes we make are clearly measurable and we can enjoy feeling positive about what we have done.

My second point is that this was not an all-or-nothing solution. We gave up nothing to achieve our improvement. Sure, it would have been nice to find a zero-emission solution, but instead of feeling bad about not getting to zero we can choose to feel good about the improvement we have achieved. A 44% reduction in emissions from private cars would be a big step in the right direction if we all could do it!

Conclusions

• Don't fall for the "all or nothing" argument. It's OK to move in the right direction, even if the result isn't perfect.
• To motivate yourself, measure the results, using the right scale.
• Take time to congratulate yourself for the advancement you have made, reflecting on the gains.
• Be encouraged, and then think about what else you can do.