The burdens and rewards of our fossil fuel-based economy are not equally shared. Vast numbers of people have profited; we have less extreme poverty and starvation than we did 75 years ago.

Yet many people who do not profit as much from the fossil fuel driven economic engine as others suffer disproportionately from the effects of climate change, air pollution and environmental degradation. Wealthier people are often buffered from some of the worst effects (for now).

Most of the problems have been created by middle and high income nations, and most of the current overuse of resources is by the wealthier countries. For example, Africa and parts of South America have the smallest carbon footprints.  For a map with this data: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/carbon-footprint-by-country

We can’t ask low and median income countries that are trying to improve their living standards to continue to live in poverty and curtail growth without some assistance from wealthier nations that are producing the most greenhouse gas (GHG) per capita, and expect them to comply.

Why, they ask, should they make sacrifices when the wealthy nations do relatively little of substance to fight climate change?

The same applies to poor populations in the United States and other wealthy nations. Fossil fuels have disproportionately brought profits to higher income groups, and are disproportionately used by those groups, while others live in toxic cancer corridors polluted by industrial sources, or near highways, or drink water with lead or other toxins in it.

Why should those with less resources cut back on fossil fuel use and sacrifice when the rich and famous fly private jets, even for short distances, when they could drive in their electric vehicle powered by their solar array if they chose to?

Why should the poor be asked to sacrifice while industrial waste poisons them and lead damages their children’s developing brains, because those with power and resources claim the money isn’t there to fix the problems they played a larger role in creating and still profit from?

This leads to a cycle of poverty. Poor health and impaired brain development, from lead and other toxins and pollutants, are hardly a level playing field.

There are small island nations that are losing their land already due to rising ocean levels, with more to come.

There are populations around the world with little other incomewhere fishing stocks are depleted or threatened by environmental damage, such as when the economy depends on products that require coral ecosystems that are now dying, or whose coasts are being degraded by poorly run fish or shrimp operations.

Countries with the resources to have industrial level fishing operations over-fish the waters near poorer nations that don’t have the capital to pay for larger operations that can go out as far to fish. This destroys the local economy and food supply.

Beyond our sense of fairness and justice, even those who are not poor and not as directly affected by climate change can be impacted when large segments of the population are. We are interconnected.

Population displacement due to climactic conditions and extreme weather events can lead to terrible suffering, resulting in disruption of the world economy by altered supply chains, and even more displacement, social unrest and even wars.

This can lead to great economic, political and social difficulties even in the middle and upper median income countries.

It is in the self-interest of wealthier nations to prevent such negative downward spirals.

And they would see that IF they weren’t blinded by short-term profits and greed.

In higher income countries, some neighborhoods are unfairly burdened by being near factories (including large agricultural ventures), highways, landfills, or are in “urban heat islands” (areas that have little green space and a lot of concrete increasing the heat), but do not profit from them. These communities are often populated by African Americans, Native Americans, immigrants or other people of color, and have lower median incomes. They have less political power, less voice and agency, which is why these facilities are located there.

Historically, this is in part by design. For example, some of this goes back to “redlining,” a practice in the United States in the mid 20th century of deciding whether banks will give mortgages in certain “less desirable” urban areas, most often those populated by people of color, particularly African Americans. Neighborhoods were marginalized and broken up.

It was foreseeable that this would set up a vicious downward cycle, and it did.

These groups also have less resources to deal with the problems from climate change. They can’t afford air conditioning, or have the money to pay electric and gas bills. There is less mobility, fewer supplies and other resources needed to deal with extreme weather events, the health effects of air pollution (air purifiers, health insurance), or rising prices as the food supply gets more precarious.

This is particularly important to consider when designing solutions.

For example, there is evidence that carbon pricing, that is, charging companies that use fossil fuels and discharge greenhouse gases, is a useful tool in fighting CO2 emissions by stimulating companies to find alternatives and increase efficiency. However, that cost will be passed to consumers. The price of food (which is transported and takes GHG producing equipment to grow, store and process), gasoline, heating fuel, and other necessities may increase, a particular burden on those who have little income to spare. Giving a rebate to consumers, particularly low income consumers, can ease the burden, if well designed and well administered. It is critical to not let large corporations and others with vested interests or political or social agendas at odds with a fair implementation derail such efforts.

We want others to conserve the Amazon and African forests and savannah, and create eco-parks, and rightfully so, but hungry people in those places don’t always share our priorities.

Of course, many care deeply about the loss of resources and their traditional ways of life, but when their very survival is at stake, when they are starving, they look at us, and ask: what happened to your grasslands, forests and wetlands? Your herds of herbivores fertilizing the grasslands? You are wealthy and still destroy more and more.

We need people to be secure and be treated with justice and dignity for nature, for civilization, to survive.

The wealthiest have caused the most harm

It would take the resources of five Earths to support the lifestyle of the United States for everybody! Unsustainable, and all the money in the world ultimately won’t change that. You can’t buy what isn’t there.

Historically the United States has been estimated to have contributed 40% of climate breakdown, and from 1990-2014 has done the most harm in the world, at almost two trillion dollars of damage (followed closely by China) from greenhouse gas emissions! 

How much GHG do the richest produce compared to the less well off?

To produce 4.434 metric tons of CO2 it takes:

• 3.5 Americans

• 25 Brazilians

• 146 Nigerians

  ( From the book the Carbon Almanac)

  In addition:

• The richest 1% of humanity was responsible for 15% of global emissions, which was more than twice the 7% of total emissions the poorest 50% of the world population was responsible for! Yep, you read it right: about 70 or so million people produce over twice the GHG of over three and a half billion people.

• Within the United States, the wealthiest 10% emit more than four times the GHG than the average American does.

• Katharine Hayhoe in Saving Us writes that Oxfam reports that globally it is similar: the richest 10% are responsible for 50% of global emissions.

• Similarly, the latest IPPC report estimates the richest 10% produces 40% of global emissions.

What about ecotourism to help out?

Ecotourism does help to bring dollars to areas that need the money and supports efforts to preserve natural habitats. But is not without problems, including the CO2 generated flying the tourists to where the ecotourist attractions are, and risks to the ecosystem and animals if there are too many tourists.

Ecotourism can be a success and help the local economy, and hopefully managed with equity in mind. Costa Rica is an example of a nation that achieved some success by paying attention to what worked.

But too often the local population is asked to sacrifice too much. From their point of view they often lose potentially arable land, access to natural resources (including waterways and animals they consider food that are now off limits in protected parks), and have their livestock and crops threatened by protected predators (lions or wolves) or large animals (elephants and other herbivores) that leave protected areas.

Ecosystems will rebound if given a chance. In a Zoom presentation Michael Keigwin spoke about the situation in nature reserves in Uganda. If poaching was below 10% of animals, the park animals would survive without a crash in population. But poaching had to be below 3% for the animals to really thrive.

We owe a debt to the brave and well-trained rangers who combat poachers. Hiring ranges saves animals and maintains diversity and the ecosystem. That brings ecotourism, providing jobs and so more local income and less poaching.

Ecotourism is not without problems, but it can help the ecology and the humans who need to survive.

We need to consider the stakeholders when we make changes

This takes place all around the world. It need not be as dramatic as Uganda. It can be the wolves reintroduced into Yellowstone.

And it isn’t only about rewilding and ecotourism. We have to consider less powerful stakeholders, the realm of equity, in dealing with climate change. When workers are displaced in a fossil-fuel industry, we need to be thoughtful about the devastating effects it will have both on them personally and their families, but also on the local community.

If we don’t attend to these concerns we will not succeed, or we will succeed in a way that creates more suffering for many so that a few at the top may thrive and indulge.

That is bound to have dire consequences for all of us; if that results in enough suffering and social displacement, there will be social and economic prices to pay that perhaps even the money of the wealthy won’t be able to compensate for, no matter how they lock themselves up in their fortresses.

Most Americans want to be fair.

The Yale Program on Climate Change, along with others, reported research that showed:

• Two in three Americans support increasing funding to communities harmed by pollution.

• Eight in ten support improved energy efficiency in low-income communities.

• Seven in ten support a clean energy transition by 2050.

• Eight in ten want polices to create climate-friendly jobs.

These are just some highlights. It is worth looking at. Many of their findings have broad support, in some cases regardless of political party, ethnicity, age, and education.

Additional Resources

Experts say story telling is important in framing discussions of climate change. Here are two books full of stories of resilience in the face of climate change and injustice:

What Climate Justice Means and Why We Should Care. Elizabeth Cripps. Bloomsbury Continuum, 2022.

Climate Justice, hope, resilience and the fight for a sustainable future. Mary Robinson. Bloomsbury, 2022.

Quantifying national responsibility for climate breakdown: an equality-based attribution approach for carbon dioxide emissions in excess of the planetary boundary. Jason Hickel the Lancet Planetary Health 2020; 4:e399

National attribution of historical climate damages. Callahan CW and Mankin JS 2022; Climate Change 172 article 40 (open access). This article has incredible graphics and is packed with information.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/carbon-footprint-by-country An interactive map.

Laudato Si’ The Pope’s encyclical on climate change. A strong statement for climate justice.

The Climate Justice Alliance is a grassroots group. I have only spent a little time on their website, but plan on spending more so thought I would include it here.

UCLA Center for Healthy Climate Solutions (C-Solutions) Out of the Fielding School of Public Health, UCLA. Equity and justice is part of their mandate.