World's wealthiest 10% have contributed to two-thirds of global warming since 1990, study finds

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/21822936

"If everyone had emitted like the bottom 50% of the global population, the world would have seen minimal additional warming since 1990,"

The study assesses the contribution of the highest emitting groups within societies and finds that the top 1% of the wealthiest individuals globally contributed 26 times the global average to increases in monthly 1-in-100-year heat extremes globally and 17 times more to Amazon droughts.

The research sheds new light on the links between income-based emissions inequality and climate injustice, illustrating how the consumption and investments of wealthy individuals have had disproportionate impacts on extreme weather events

Our study shows that extreme climate impacts are not just the result of abstract global emissions, instead we can directly link them to our lifestyle and investment choices, which in turn are linked to wealth,"

Sustainability @europe.pub

tfm @europe.pub

11h ago

World's wealthiest 10% have contributed to two-thirds of global warming since 1990, study finds

phys.org /news/2025-05-world-wealthiest-contributed-thirds-global.html

Collapse @lemm.ee

Hanrahan @slrpnk.net

16h ago

World's wealthiest 10% have contributed to two-thirds of global warming since 1990, study finds

phys.org /news/2025-05-world-wealthiest-contributed-thirds-global.html

19 comments

No. It's not 2/3 of climate change caused by wealthy bastards, it's 100%.
Non-wealthy people don't own factories spewing heat and trash into the air. Non-wealthy people might own cars, but they don't design and build those cars to constantly spew dangerous & deadly emissions — wealthy people are responsible for that, and for the lack of a healthier, greener choice for transportation. It's wealthy bastards who've fought against regulations reducing pollution, wealthy bastards who oppose public transit, and wealthy bastards who profit from the climate change that'll eventually kill the rest of us.
Fuck if I'm causing 1/3 of climate change. Fuck, no.
Wealthy bastards make sure environmental protection is a punchline, and wrap everything in plastic like Laura Palmer. The rich are at the heart of every vile thing that's being done to the planet. Virtually all of man-made climate change is caused by rich bastards.

It takes only around $850k of net worth to be in the global 1% for wealth. Minimum wage ($7.25/hr) will put you in the top 10% of wages. So this really just says industrialized nations have been responsible for most emissions.
- It's also the rich classes in "developing" countries.
- The world top 10% grossing earners start at $49,000
- Countries that emit are top emitters, shocking news
- That might not have been true for the entirety of time since the 90's
- Partially, I agree your conclusion, but I believe some clarifications could help on the math part, because minimum wage will never put you in the top 10% of world income.
  From investopedia 2024:
  How Much Income Puts You in the Top 1%, 5%, 10%?
  Individuals in the top 10% earn at least six figures annually. In some areas, those in the top 1% must make over $1 million per year, while in others, the threshold is lower.
  
  That's the top 10% in the United States. They're talking about the top 10% in the world.
  
  I think you're underestimating how poor most of the globe is. This study is also on wealth, not just income
  
  Oh, I was just talking about if you averaged things globally. Of course it’s much higher than that if you limit the scope to specific countries or groups.

For anyone wondering, the wealthiest top 1% alone accounts for one-fifth of warming.
Link to original study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-025-02325-x
Full abstract:
- That's huge. That means that if you're in the tenth percentile of income/emissions, you might well be emitting less than the global average.
  I say this because it's true if you make the assumption of exponential decay. Their data isn't accurate enough to check that assumption, but it's the most parsimonious one, and in this case the function that fits would be:
  
  E = 29.5 e^(-P*0.36)
  Where E is the emission fraction and P is the percentile as an integer. This results in the table below, with the numbers in bold the ones that the function is fit to.
  Percentile Emissions fraction Cumulative emissions fraction
  
  1st 20.6% 20.6%
  2nd 14.4% 35.0%
  3rd 10.0% 45.0%
  4th 7.0% 52.0%
  5th 4.9% 56.9%
  6th 3.4% 60.3%
  7th 2.4% 62.7%
  8th 1.7% 64.4%
  9th 1.2% 65.6%
  10th 0.8% 66.4%
  Since a percentile is 1% wide, an emission fraction of 0.8% is below the global average.
  This assumption doesn't fit with the remaining 90% of the population, but it makes sense that the exponential relationship would slow down as people maintain a "poverty line" minimum footprint. If this consideration already affects the 10th percentile, it's possible the 10th percentile still emits more than the global average.
  
  (fig.3)

Percentile	Emissions fraction	Cumulative emissions fraction
1st	20.6%	20.6%
2nd	14.4%	35.0%
3rd	10.0%	45.0%
4th	7.0%	52.0%
5th	4.9%	56.9%
6th	3.4%	60.3%
7th	2.4%	62.7%
8th	1.7%	64.4%
9th	1.2%	65.6%
10th	0.8%	66.4%

Special Surprise: that probably includes you and me.
- I don't have a car and I don't eat meat, so it definitely doesn't include me.
  
  That's two of the big three sources of household emissions. There's a third one though: which is heating and cooling.
  I'd look at getting those off of fossil fuels next, and doing what you can to get electricity from renewables.
  
  Same!

19 comments