cross-posted from : https://news.abolish.capital/post/20413
The global richest 1% have already emitted their share of carbon for the entire 2026 year and it’s only the beginning of January, according to a report from Oxfam. Meanwhile, the richest 0.1% used all their yearly carbon budget on the 3rd of January.
‘Pollutocrat day’
The consumption and investment of the super rich has devastating consequences. While the 1% disproportionately cause the crisis, it’s the global south that will face the most climate repercussions. The climate emissions of the richest 1% in a single year will cause 1.3m heat related deaths by the end of the century. And when it comes to economic damage, the impact by 2050 could be £32.7bn for lower and middle income countries.
Huge change is necessary from the capitalist class, who are embedded with politicians through donations and lobbying. To stay within the critical 1.5 degrees of warming limit, the 1% would have to reduce their emissions by 97% by 2030.
“Simple route”
Oxfam’s Climate Policy Lead Nafkote Dabi said:
Time and time again, the research shows that governments have a very clear and simple route to drastically slash carbon emissions and tackle inequality: by targeting the richest polluters. By cracking down on the gross carbon recklessness of the super-rich, global leaders have an opportunity to put the world back on track for climate targets and unlock net benefits for people and the planet
The immense power and wealth of super-rich individuals and corporations have also allowed them to wield unjust influence over policymaking and water down climate negotiations.
It’s not just the super rich’s consumption through yachts and private jets, but their investments in fossil fuels. Oxfam’s research found that each billionaire, on average, has investments that will produce 1.9 million tonnes of carbon every year.
The influence of fossil fuel giants also goes beyond politicians. The sheer volume of lobbyists from fossil fuel companies at the leading climate summit in Brazil in November 2025 was 1,600 attendees.
Solutions
Oxfam presented ways to solve the super rich-caused climate crisis. These include increased taxes on wealth to rebalance societies away from excessive carbon use and a profit tax on fossil fuel companies.
But a publicly owned Green New Deal would bring the essential of energy into public ownership while also addressing the climate crisis in one fell swoop. Politicians need to think boldly if we are to stop global catastrophe.
Featured image via the Canary
By James Wright
From Canary via This RSS Feed.
Gui llo tine
I will note that The Guardian ran a very very similar article one week earlier
I guess I better stress more over recycling that plastic container.
Isn’t the immediate conclusion that recycling a 1%er is a much more efficient use of your time (and the earth’s resources)?
Fuck the rich, no doubt. But also, what you do DOES matter. And you should be doing more than recycling. Namely, reducing and re-utilizing. You should hate the rich, and corporations, so much that any purchase you make should be absolutely necessary and chosen in a way that reduces environmental impact and increases the (negative) impact to the rich. Wage war on corporations and the rich. Hate them so much that even giving them 1 cent makes you uncomfortable due to going against your principles.
Chances are that you’re also part of that 1% world.
a lot of it is done through private jets; the upper half isn’t rich enough to own those.
The actual problem is overshoot. Here’s an overview for the average USian https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/sustainability-indicators/us-environmental-footprint-factsheet
Energetically, it’s a resting metabolic rate of a blue whale.
Ban private jets.
What are you judging that estimate by?
you legitimately think most of us are making 700k pretax? can i have some of your drugs? that’s like, less than 1% of my country makes that, not just 1% of the world
It’s 60k pretax annually, not monthly.
why do you think that is a reliable source?
Lol. The idea that you think individual people making 60k a year where they are largely traveling nowhere other than to work and back are the ones that decrease their emissions by 97% is just bonkers.
That metric in the article, in conjunction with the OOP’s article, which quite likely accurate, doesn’t accrue enough accuracy on where the weight of blame lies imo.
The correlated idea borderlines on original sin nonsense. And yes, while simply existing in the inefficient system that is the US rises your carbon footprint, there are far more significant measures that could be made than telling people edging the poverty line to reduce their emissions.
Also your link you keep posting around doesn’t seem to account for cost of living, PPP, taxation etc, or if it does, it doesn’t seem to source it. It would be interesting to see how those numbers change with those variables accounted for.
what the fuck you think “chances are” we’re all making 60k/year net?! what planet are you on it must be nice. statistically (the chances are that) we’re in the 99% that make less than that!
If you’re reading this on Lemmy, chances are a lot higher than 1%. And whether you’re top one or two percent: no raindrop blames itself for the flood.
Chances are… maybe.
The threshold they used for this is around 150k. So I’m guessing some lemmings might exceed this, but probably a minority? Not sure what our income distribution looks like. I definitely don’t make this much.
However, they use an average for the category to calculate emissions. The average for the global 1% is 400k/year. While I’m sure there might be a small number on Lemmy who make that much, that’s a lot of money.
However, this is also a global average. So if you’re in a nation (such as the USA) that has higher than typical carbon emissions, your lifestyle might involve emissions beyond the typical person with your income. The annual carbon budget was about 2 tons, so that’s the benchmark here. For myself, I probably exceed this annually but I doubt if I do in the first few weeks of the year.
So yeah it’s pretty complicated. I think the question is more: are we committing ourselves adequately to political struggle? And are there carbon intensive luxuries we can easily eliminate to make a large difference in our carbon budget?
See the methodology here for more details: https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/621741/mn-climate-plunder-29102025-en.pdf
I’m not sure why that’s so different than the numbers in the oxfam study. Your numbers are after tax but I wouldn’t necessarily assume people are paying over 50% of their income in taxes.
However I think that’s still well above the median income in most western countries. But maybe more like upper middle class.
Your numbers are after tax but I wouldn’t necessarily assume people are paying over 50% of their income in taxes.
Eh, to be fair that’s not so unlikely. Here in Italy I pay about 33% of my income in taxes directly from my salary, as in I don’t ever receive that money, then you’ve got 22% VAT on most purchases excluding food which is 4-5% and energy at 10%.
Energy doesn’t include fuel taxes, which are about 30-40% taxes I think (it’s complex)… Of course if you own a car you are also forced to pay a yearly circulation tax, depending on the engine power and other things, might go from 150€ to… well, a lot, but let’s say 600€ if we exclude extreme cases. And you’re obligated to have insurance as well, that’s another complex cost to calculate and it carries its own taxes. And bi-yearly (2 years) mandatory maintenance and emissions check, that’s not much but it’s still mostly taxes IIRC.
Then there’s lots of small things, public broadcasting fee for our state television, 90€, local taxes for specific reasons, let’s there’s something in your local environment that requires constant upkeep, if you smoke, tobacco costs are mostly taxes (1 packet of cigarettes is 5€).
Do public services count as taxes? Like schools, trash disposal, etc?
If you add it all up I think it can get to 50%.
What, you think many of us own more than a million dollars in net worth?
More than 60 kUSD/year after tax is enough https://daadscholarship.com/how-much-money-need-to-earn-to-join-top-1-of-the-world-in-2025/ The other one is 1.2 MUSD total assets. That’s not a lot, these days.
It’s 80 million people, across the whole world. Not THAT likely.
More than 1% chance since we’re on the internet after all, but still not that likely.If you own a car and live with as a single family… congratulations you’re amoung the 1%. You underestimate how poor the rest of the world is. Its the 0.01% that are ultra wealthy.
How many people are making more than 60 kUSD after tax annually? The figure is a lot higher than 80 million.
Then it’s not the 1%
then it’s a misused term because 1% of 8 billion is 80 million
