The super-rich's assets are causing an outsized amount of climate harm, according to a study. While it's easy to point fingers at the ultra-wealthy for their lavish lifestyles, from private jets to Instagrammable consumption, the real issue lies in their bank accounts and the assets they own. Through their ownership of companies and private financial and physical assets, from oil producers to property developments, the super-rich are responsible for a significant portion of the greenhouse gases that are overheating the planet. The top 1% of people by wealth, through their shareholdings and investments, control about a quarter of global annual emissions in total. This is where the concept of 'climate debt' comes in. Greenpeace has calculated the 'climate debt' of these high net worth individuals, by attributing to them their share of the damage done to the climate by the assets they own. By this reckoning, the world's richest cause nearly $1tn a year of damage to the climate. This raises a deeper question: why should ordinary households shoulder so much of the burden, while some of the world's wealthiest people continue to profit from the industries driving the crisis? The answer lies in the fact that the top 1% by wealth are responsible for about 40% of all 'ownership' based emissions, which themselves make up 60% of global carbon output. Within that group, the top 0.1% account for about 17% of ownership-based emissions, and the top 0.01% about 9%. The bottom half of the world by wealth, on the other hand, accounts for just 3% of ownership-based emissions. This imbalance is further exacerbated by the fact that big banks and other financial investors poured $900bn into fossil fuels last year, despite promises made by many five years ago to curb such investments. The glaring inequalities between the impact on the planet of the super-rich and those of ordinary people are increasingly coming under the spotlight, as wealth inequality soars around the world. The economist Thomas Piketty led a report showing that the world could live equitably within the planet's finite resources, if excesses of wealth were curbed by taxes and the poor allowed to keep a bigger share of what their labour produces. This raises a deeper question: what can be done to address this imbalance? One way to address the imbalance could be through wealth taxes. Climate debt is about responsibility, said Clara Thompson, the global lead campaigner on socioeconomic systems at Greenpeace International. If we agree that those who contributed most to the problem should contribute more to fixing it, it's reasonable to ask whether that principle should apply to extreme wealth as well. As governments from around the world gather in Bonn, Germany, for a fortnight of talks in advance of the Cop31 UN climate summit in November, one of the items likely to receive most attention will be arrangements for a 'just transition' to help workers affected by the transition away from fossil fuels to participate in the low-carbon economy. But what does this really suggest? In my opinion, it suggests that we need to pay much more attention to what people own and invest in, rather than just their consumption habits. It also suggests that we need to address the glaring inequalities between the impact on the planet of the super-rich and those of ordinary people. This is not just a story about private jets and lavish lifestyles. When it comes to the pollution of the ultra-wealthy, ownership matters even more than consumption. A large share of emissions is associated with the ownership of carbon-intensive assets and investments, and it's time we started holding the super-rich accountable for their share of the climate debt.
