WHY THIS REPORT?
The climate crisis has begun to disrupt human
societies by severely affecting the
very foundations of human livelihood and
social organisation. Climate impacts are
not equally distributed across the world:
on average, low- and middle-income
countries suffer greater impacts than their
richer counterparts. At the same time,
the climate crisis is also marked by significant
inequalities within countries. Recent
research reveals a high concentration of
global greenhouse gas emissions among
a relatively small fraction of the population,
living in emerging and rich countries.
In addition, vulnerability to numerous climate
impacts is strongly linked to income
and wealth, not just between countries
but also within them.
The aim of this report is twofold. It endeavours
first to shed light on these various
dimensions of climate inequality in a
systematic and detailed analysis, focusing
on low- and middle-income countries
in particular. It then builds on these insights,
together with additional empirical
work and interviews with experts, to suggest
pathways to development cooperation,
and tax and social policies that
tackle climate inequalities at their core.
OUR KEY FINDINGS
All individuals contribute to emissions,
but not in the same way. The top 10%
of global carbon emitters generate almost
half of all greenhouse gas emissions.
Thus, in addition to an obvious equity concern,
there appears to be an efficiency
question at stake. The marginal effort required
to achieve the same emission reductions
might be significantly lower for
high-emitting groups, thereby creating a
strong incentive for policies targeted at
this group. The comparison of the global
bottom 50%, middle 40% and top 10% in
terms of losses, emissions and capacity
to finance global climate action provides
a striking snapshot of climate inequalities
and a reasonable guide to identify the
key contributors to the funding of climate
inequality reduction policies (Figure A).
Better understanding howgroups may win
and lose from the energy transition is key
to accelerating it. It is also necessary to
drawpolicy conclusions fromthe fact that
the top emitters are likely to be relatively
well protected from the adverse consequences
of climate change. Hence,
their incentives to reduce emissions are
not necessarily aligned with the damage
those emissions cause. This holds at the
international level, as well as within countries.
Quantifying inequalities in carbon
emissions and exposure to damages allows
to be more explicit about these issues
and can help facilitate effective climate
policies, aswell as public debate on these
important matters.
Carbon inequalities within countries now
appear to be greater than carbon inequalities
between countries. The consumption
and investment patterns of a
relatively small group of the population
directly or indirectly contribute disproportionately
to greenhouse gases. While
cross-country emission inequalities remain
sizeable, overall inequality in global emissions
is now mostly explained by withincountry
inequalities by some indicators.
Ending global poverty need not overshoot
global carbon budgets. Recent research
contradicts the idea that ending global
poverty would eat up most of the remaining
global carbon budget to meet the
Paris targets. Lifting large numbers of people
out of poverty need not have a large
negative effect on climate change mitigation.
The carbon budgets required to
eradicate poverty remain relatively limited
compared with global top emitters’
footprints. With well designed redistribution
and climate policies, the impacts of
poverty alleviation on overall emissions
can be further reduced.
Climate change contributes to economic
and material deprivation in myriad ways,
now well documented. It aggravates low
agricultural productivity in poorer countries,
as well as water scarcity and security.
Heat waves have significant impacts
on mortality, particularly in vulnerable urban
centres. Tropical cyclones and floods
will continue to displace millions of people,
mostly in low-income countries, and
rising sea levels will make large swaths
of coastal land inhabitable. While such
events will affect regions as a whole, studies
point to a strong socio-economic relationship
between exposure (and especially
vulnerability) and current living conditions,
whereby the worst off are more
affected than the rest. The wide set of
already visible climate change impacts
reveal that, when it comes to mitigation,
every fraction of a degree matters. It follows
that every tonne of carbon matters
as much as every dollar of adaptation
funding.
As a direct consequence, all governments
need to reconsider their mitigation
targets, and especially the historical
emitters, the list of which should include
large emerging economies, as emissions
continue to rise.
to read the full report please click on
/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Climate%20Inequality%20Report-2.pdf
^
WHY THIS REPORT?
The climate crisis has begun to disrupt human
societies by severely affecting the
very foundations of human livelihood and
social organisation. Climate impacts are
not equally distributed across the world:
on average, low- and middle-income
countries suffer greater impacts than their
richer counterparts. At the same time,
the climate crisis is also marked by significant
inequalities within countries. Recent
research reveals a high concentration of
global greenhouse gas emissions among
a relatively small fraction of the population,
living in emerging and rich countries.
In addition, vulnerability to numerous climate
impacts is strongly linked to income
and wealth, not just between countries
but also within them.
The aim of this report is twofold. It endeavours
first to shed light on these various
dimensions of climate inequality in a
systematic and detailed analysis, focusing
on low- and middle-income countries
in particular. It then builds on these insights,
together with additional empirical
work and interviews with experts, to suggest
pathways to development cooperation,
and tax and social policies that
tackle climate inequalities at their core.
OUR KEY FINDINGS
All individuals contribute to emissions,
but not in the same way. The top 10%
of global carbon emitters generate almost
half of all greenhouse gas emissions.
Thus, in addition to an obvious equity concern,
there appears to be an efficiency
question at stake. The marginal effort required
to achieve the same emission reductions
might be significantly lower for
high-emitting groups, thereby creating a
strong incentive for policies targeted at
this group. The comparison of the global
bottom 50%, middle 40% and top 10% in
terms of losses, emissions and capacity
to finance global climate action provides
a striking snapshot of climate inequalities
and a reasonable guide to identify the
key contributors to the funding of climate
inequality reduction policies (Figure A).
Better understanding howgroups may win
and lose from the energy transition is key
to accelerating it. It is also necessary to
drawpolicy conclusions fromthe fact that
the top emitters are likely to be relatively
well protected from the adverse consequences
of climate change. Hence,
their incentives to reduce emissions are
not necessarily aligned with the damage
those emissions cause. This holds at the
international level, as well as within countries.
Quantifying inequalities in carbon
emissions and exposure to damages allows
to be more explicit about these issues
and can help facilitate effective climate
policies, aswell as public debate on these
important matters.
Carbon inequalities within countries now
appear to be greater than carbon inequalities
between countries. The consumption
and investment patterns of a
relatively small group of the population
directly or indirectly contribute disproportionately
to greenhouse gases. While
cross-country emission inequalities remain
sizeable, overall inequality in global emissions
is now mostly explained by withincountry
inequalities by some indicators.
Ending global poverty need not overshoot
global carbon budgets. Recent research
contradicts the idea that ending global
poverty would eat up most of the remaining
global carbon budget to meet the
Paris targets. Lifting large numbers of people
out of poverty need not have a large
negative effect on climate change mitigation.
The carbon budgets required to
eradicate poverty remain relatively limited
compared with global top emitters’
footprints. With well designed redistribution
and climate policies, the impacts of
poverty alleviation on overall emissions
can be further reduced.
Climate change contributes to economic
and material deprivation in myriad ways,
now well documented. It aggravates low
agricultural productivity in poorer countries,
as well as water scarcity and security.
Heat waves have significant impacts
on mortality, particularly in vulnerable urban
centres. Tropical cyclones and floods
will continue to displace millions of people,
mostly in low-income countries, and
rising sea levels will make large swaths
of coastal land inhabitable. While such
events will affect regions as a whole, studies
point to a strong socio-economic relationship
between exposure (and especially
vulnerability) and current living conditions,
whereby the worst off are more
affected than the rest. The wide set of
already visible climate change impacts
reveal that, when it comes to mitigation,
every fraction of a degree matters. It follows
that every tonne of carbon matters
as much as every dollar of adaptation
funding.
As a direct consequence, all governments
need to reconsider their mitigation
targets, and especially the historical
emitters, the list of which should include
large emerging economies, as emissions
continue to rise.
to read the full report please click on
/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Climate%20Inequality%20Report-2.pdf
^
