Climate change is a purely scientific but also a deeply social problem, with the majority of the world paying the heaviest toll, while the economic elite are constantly increasing this toll. Studies clearly show extreme disparities in responsibility for global emissions: while the richest ten percent of the world's people produce almost half of all greenhouse gases (approximately 47–50 %), the richest one percent are responsible for 15–20 % of emissions. As Slovak political scientist Peter Profant aptly noted: "Reduce the income and assets of the rich - then they will not be able to consume as much."

This "carbon yoke" is being pulled by only a small part of humanity. A graphical analysis by the Hot or Cool Institute think tank showed that

that for example The average American produces up to 17 times more emissions per year than would meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. Similarly, Australia and Canada exceed their “carbon share” by 11 to 12 times. The fact that just a few percent of the richest people massively pollute the air is alarming. For example, the yachts, private flights and investments of the 50 richest billionaires alone produce more carbon in about 90 minutes than the average person does in a lifetime. The Guardian also pointed out that the richest 10% of the population are responsible for two-thirds of the global warming that has occurred since 1990.

An example of extreme overconsumption is the air travel of the wealthy elite. American scientists found that the 13,500 private planes in the US produce approximately 940 million tons of CO₂ per year, which is the emissions equivalent of 50 million cars. Moreover, these private flights often consume several times more fuel per kilometer than regular commercial flights. The rich generally indulge in more energy and resources than average people – they own bigger houses, cars, fly more often and eat more meat, which directly leads to higher greenhouse gas emissions and faster global warming.

Inequality as a brake on effective climate action

Despite these facts, the problem of excessive consumption by the rich is not being addressed in effective climate policies. Experts warn that Economic inequality is systematically hindering the resolution of the crisisIn practice, the rich have disproportionate political influence and often own companies that reject climate action. Oxfam research has shown that many businesses linked to the 50 richest billionaires lobby against beneficial climate agreements. Since a quarter of these billionaires got their wealth from fossil fuels, it is natural that they block climate-friendly efforts.

Conversely, the vulnerable and poor groups that are most affected by the climate crisis are least represented in politics. Economist Rohini Pande argues that rising inequality undermines democracy because the richest hold disproportionate power, leading to weakened climate regulations and carbon prices. The rich are not concerned about the consequences of their emissions because they assume they can protect their comfort zones and ignore warnings in the interest of profit.

The shift to better policies is also complicated by a sense of injustice. If carbon taxes are imposed across the board, they can be seen as a punishment for the poor. Pande notes that if a carbon tax is designed as a “tax for the poor,” both the rich and the poor will unite against it (as was seen, for example, in the yellow vest protests in France). This makes it difficult to effectively implement new taxes.

Fair instruments to reduce emissions

To balance this inequality, experts propose various tools:

1. Carbon Tax: A standard tool, but economists emphasize that it must be designed in a socially sensitive way, for example with exceptions for low incomes, otherwise it would disproportionately burden the poor.
2. Luxury Carbon Tax: These are particularly harsh taxes on luxury emissions that only the very wealthy can afford. These include taxes on private jets, superyachts, expensive cars and luxury properties. Professors Wallace and Welton propose such a solution to focus attention on the 10% of the population that produce the most emissions. Canada has already introduced a tax on luxury cars, boats and planes, and Los Angeles has increased a tax on the sale of expensive properties.
3. Frequent-flyer levy: An additional tax on those with multiple annual flights, aimed at curbing excessive air consumption by “wealthy travelers.” Pande mentions that the alternative of banning short-haul commercial aircraft is also being considered.
4. Progressive taxes on wealth and income: Higher rates for the wealthiest citizens (e.g. from large inheritances, assets or capital gains). The European report even recommends introducing a so-called wealth cap – the maximum permitted ratio between the highest and lowest incomes.

These measures would significantly increase the fairness of climate policy. Oxfam has calculated that a tax package targeting airports and yachts could generate up to £2 billion a year in the UK, “hitting those who can afford it”.

Redistribution is climate policy

A fairer carbon policy would benefit society as a whole. If the rich contribute adequately to their emissions, it frees up carbon space for others and creates resources to help the most vulnerable. Rohini Pande sums it up with this sentence: "Redistribution from rich to poor is climate policy"If the richest decile reduced its carbon footprint to sustainable levels, annual global emissions would fall by more than a third.

The funds collected from these taxes should finance green public transport, zero-emission housing renovations or adaptation programs for the poorest. This would allow the public to see immediate benefits – for example, more affordable public transport instead of cars, better insulated houses or the development of renewable energy.

As the Hot or Cool report concludes, “globally coordinated action on taxes and wealth could secure basic necessities for all and ease the social tensions that undermine climate cooperation.” The rich must not be spared—they must pay for their overconsumer lifestyles to relieve the burden on the planet and give society as a whole a more realistic chance of a sustainable future. JRi