text: This is an episode that is probably going to make a lot of you angry. I know it’s making me angry right now.
  A few days ago, Oxfam released their latest report called “Carbon Inequality Kills,” and we’ll be talking about that today.
  This is a damning report on just how much carbon the billionaires of the world are producing and why it dwarfs any possible emissions you could be producing on your own.
  In this episode I share:
  You can find the full report from Oxfam here: https://www.oxfam.org.au/2024/10/carbon-inequality-kills-report/
  “50 of the world’s richest billionaires emit more carbon in just 90 minutes that your average person emits over their entire lifetime.”
  “If everyone began emitting at the same rate as the world’s richest 10% the world's remaining carbon budget would be depleted in 1.5 years. If we all acted like the top 1% that budget would be used up in less that 5 months.”
  You can get involved with the podcast online
  Find our full podcast via the website here: https://www.nowthatswhaticall.com/
  You can follow me on socials on the below accounts.
  Kia ora kaitiaki and welcome to Now That's What I Call Green. I'm your host, Brianne West, an environmentalist and entrepreneur trying to get you as excited about our planet as I am. I'm all about creating a scientific approach to making the world a better place without the judgment and making it fun. And of course, we will be chatting about some of the most amazing creatures we share our
  planet with. So if you are looking to navigate through everything green or not so green, you have come to the right place. Okay, this episode is going to make you mad. It's going to make you furious, enraged even. But hopefully it's going to put some of that guilt that you feel when you forget your reusable bags into perspective because the climate crisis is not your fault. It's not my fault.
  And while we are all in this together and we're absolutely all responsible for fixing it if we want to live and have a great life in the future and for future generations, there are definitely some people who are more at fault than others for causing it. Now normally I talk about how corporations are at fault, but actually I'm going to talk about individuals in this episode. Fifty of the world's richest billionaires emit more carbon in just 90 minutes than your
  average person emits over their entire lifetime. That comes from Oxfam's latest report called Carbon Inequality Kills. And that's what we're talking about today. So welcome back. This report blew my mind because, wow, look, I'm obviously an advocate for personal lifestyle changes.
  They are important not only to make you feel better, action is the cure for apathy, but they also show other people that acting is important. And actually those small actions lead to bigger ones like voting for better companies and voting for better governments, right? But this just goes to show how important it is beyond everything else that we vote with our dollar and our vote because these guys that I'm about to talk about got rich from us through their companies and through investments.
  But the numbers are horrendous, right? Half of the world's total emissions come from just the wealthiest 10% of the population. Now you probably are in that 10%. So many of us are, right? So to make it to the top 10% in the world, you need to have a net worth of about $170,000. So if you consider all your assets, if you've got a house, your house, cars, any savings
  that you do or do not have, if that is over that 170 mark, then you're in the top 10%. The 1% is quite a lot higher at about just shy of $2 million New Zealand dollars. But I guess my point is those numbers are actually a little bit lower than you might think. The top 1% are not all billionaires, but that top 1% contribute about 16% of global emissions, which is more than the combined emissions of the world's
  poorest two-thirds. So to put that in, I guess, some kind of perspective, if everyone on earth began emitting at the same rate as the richest 10%, the world's remaining carbon budget that we have would be depleted in one and a half years. If we all acted like the top 1%, that budget would be used up in less than five months. And, much worse, if everybody lives as extravagantly as the people I'm about to talk about, the billionaires whose Oxfam studied, our entire carbon budget would vanish in two days. What do I mean, right? So, these superyachts, for example, they emit around 7,000 tonnes of CO2 per year
  when kept on standby, which is equivalent to what an average person might emit over about 860 years. The private jets they own, predominantly owned by older men in finance and real estate, Oxfam's words, not mine, they emit carbon that dwarf the lifetime emissions of most communities. But it isn't just about the ownership of their luxury toys, their investment portfolios on average are nearly twice as polluting as those in the S&P, standard and poor, 500. They are driven by heavy stakes in fossil fuels and mining and
  the usual. They contribute massively to global emissions and they drive climate breakdown on a much larger scale than private transport. And I'm going to go into that a little bit deeper because we talk about travel, we talk about super yachts, but very few people talk about how investment is one of the biggest levers we have to pull when it comes to preventing further climate change. Because whilst the wealthiest enjoy the benefits of the economic growth fuelled by such dramatic emissions, they're not the ones who pay the costs.
  Because there are regions like East Africa where communities have contributed absolutely sod all to global climate emissions, but they face some of the most devastating climate impacts. I mean, last year alone, they had extreme weather events like droughts and floods, which left over 31.5 million people facing acute hunger and that's just one example. They are bearing the brunt of a crisis that they didn't create. So it's not just unfair, it's killing people. So if we go back to private jets, according to Oxfam
  research, Jeff Bezos has two private jets because obviously why would you just have one when you can have two? And they spend about 25 days in the air over a 12-month period. Do have to wonder why he has two if he doesn't use it that much. But still, even at that minimal usage, those jets have emitted as much carbon as the average Amazon employee would do over 207 years. Elon Musk has at least two private jets, I'm not actually sure if there's more, which together produce about 5,437 years worth for someone in
  the global poorest 50%. And you think planes are bad because again, we talk about private jets a lot, but super yachts, even worse. On average, a super yacht emits 5,672 tonnes of CO2 per year. Yeah, 5,672 tonnes, which is what an average person will emit over about 860 years. But weirdly and kind of enragingly, superyachts are exempt from EU carbon pricing and the International Maritime Organisation emission rules. I wonder why that would be?
  There is a family called the Walton family, you may have heard of their massive company called Walmart. They own three superyachts that together emitted as much carbon in one year as 1,700 Walmart employees one year. So these aren't just statistics that sound horrendous. They underscore how this obsession with consumption and luxury lifestyle by a small, very, very small,
  ultra wealthy group consumes a massive part of the world's remaining carbon, not to mention other resources. So whilst they're encouraging people to give up straws and all those things, and again, I encourage individual action,
  it's just not the be all and end all, the extreme emissions from these guys outpace any reductions that we do. I'm going to get to the point where we can make a difference, but I just want to hammer this home a little bit because so many people are feeling guilty about the things they do or don't do, and ultimately guilt is unhelpful. So if we go back to their investment portfolios, because I do think this is fascinating, so
  Oxfam found that their emissions from these investments are on average 340 times greater than their emissions from their private jets and yachts combined. So those horrendous numbers times it by 340 because they concentrate in industries like oil and mining and cement. Cement and concrete are actually horrific for the environment, so they dwarf even those horrendous numbers from private transport.
  So the richest 1% contain 43% of global financial assets, which is massive influence over the world, more than I think we even really know. Because billionaires themselves control, either as CEOs or principal investors, 34 percent of the 50 largest listed companies in the world and seven out of the 10 largest. So that is a massive, massive control they have and that makes their investment footprint the most significant part of their overall impact on the planet.
  So imagine the difference they would make if they made some changes to those investment portfolios. So according to Oxfam's research, the average investment emissions for the top 50 billionaires stand at 2.6 million tonnes of CO2 per individual just for their investments. That is bananas. That's equivalent to nearly 400,000 years of consumption emissions for an average person or 2.6 million years for someone in the poorest 50% of the world. Again, the scale is just ridiculous.
  And only about 24% of those companies that these billionaires invest in have set net zero targets, which are of course just a lot of the time greenwashing nonsense. The majority of them haven't got anything at all. And what's even more frustrating, many of these corporations that these billionaires invest in or own actively lobby against effective climate policies.
  Only two of the companies linked to these billionaire investors received a B rating from the Influence Map database, which means they have alignment with climate policies that are compatible with the Paris Agreement. Of course, it doesn't mean that they're actually complying with them. Then you've got in stark contrast corporations like Cargill, which are a big palm oil deforester, and Berkshire Hathaway, they received D plus and E grades.
  So they are pretty obstructive to climate policy. And you might be thinking, yeah, yeah, yeah, but these billionaires contribute massively to global economic progress, they do so much good stuff, but again, the research here, totally different story. The emissions from these richest 1% comes with a massive economic cost. So between 1990 and 2050, these emissions are expected to lead to $52.6 trillion in
  damages. And of course, the impact is most severe for low and lower to middle income countries who will bear about 44 trillion of that total. Of course, they can't afford that and I'm pretty sure the billionaires aren't going to step up and pay it any time soon. These numbers are so big, I'm trying to give you a sense of scale, but just one decade's worth of damage. That's as much as the current economic output of entire countries like Ecuador or Bulgaria. That is bananas. The reality is that the economic
  damage caused by the emissions of the ultra-rich far outweighs any actual benefit that they may or may not do, that they may or may not have. And in fact, the harm from these emissions between 1919-2023 is about three times more than all the climate finance that wealthier nations have given to poorer countries to help them manage or adapt to climate change. So yeah, they accumulate significant profit and wealth, their environmental impact causes severe long-term harm that outweighs any perceived economic benefits, and of course, the poorest
  pay the price. And this isn't just numbers and a report, right? Again, to give you some perspective, this is what this kind of stuff is leading to. So if we look at heat-related deaths, emissions from just four years of the super rich, so 2015 to 2019, are expected to lead to 1.5 million extra deaths by 2120. I know that sounds like it's a long way away. It's really not. When you include the top
  10%, that jumps to 4.8 million. That is not a statistic. Those are people, and they are often in communities that do not have resources to cope with extreme heat. Then you look at food security. So from 1990 to 2003, those same emissions from that 1% led to enough crop loss to deny food to 14.5 million people every single year. It's already horrendous, but it's set to get worse. By 2050, this number will rise to 46 million people. If you expand it again to that top 10%, the emissions lead to crop losses that could have fed 48.2 million people a year up to now, and that figure will hit 148 million by 2050.
  If you look at the economic damage, it's just as obviously it's enormous. Lower and lower to middle income countries are expected to lose about 2.5% of their GDP from 1990 to 2050 because of those emissions. That's development halted, public services collapsing, millions pushed further into poverty. just one decade of emissions from the 50 richest billionaires is projected to cause $250 billion in economic damage by 2050. I repeat that statistic because it is horrendous.
  And then lastly, there is the mental health toll. Obviously, if you're unable to eat, if you don't have anywhere safe to live, if it's incredibly hot, you're going to have some mental health problems. In places like Colombia, where pollution and lost crop productivity have impacted traditional foods, stress and mental health issues are massively on the rise. Eco-anxiety, which is something we talk about in an episode very soon, is massively on the
  rise across all age groups. And this represents a human cost of emissions beyond the sort of the health. It's huge and it's so not talked about. This report is fascinating. I really do recommend you give it a read and of course, I will put the link in the show notes.
  So when you hear that billionaires, yeah, sure, well, they live a little heavier than some of us, a lot heavier, guys. But they do so much for us in terms of economic benefit? No. In human lives, economic stability and mental wellbeing, they far outweigh any benefits.
  But what can we actually do about it because we have no power over billionaires, right? Wrong, not true, because who made them rich in the first place? We did. Corporations get rich from their customers.
  Never underestimate the power you have as a consumer. So Oxfam's come up with some solutions. First up is regulating luxury emissions and investment choices. It's freaking obvious, right? It's time to stop treating private jets and superyachts as this wonderful status symbol that we use, that they have. They should be taxed to the nines. I would personally look at banning them. I know that the, I believe the Netherlands government banned private jets as of 2026, I think it was, but unfortunately then they had an election, the new government reversed
  that ban. Ban them. I appreciate a lot of you are going to say, oh, but we need private jets for security. There are a lot of very high profile celebrities who fly commercial. There are ways of managing these things. You wouldn't even know they're on the plane a lot of the time.
  These things are doing massive damage at an outside cost and the benefit is just not there. Billionaire investments, which are often hidden by super complex portfolios, they need to be more transparent because they need to be encouraged to change their investment styles and they're not going to be
  if we don't know what's going on. They need to be much more transparent, they need to be regulations that require clear carbon reporting and encourage those shifts gently towards the greener investments.
  There needs to be a wealth tax aimed at climate action. So these numbers, I mean, they're pretty horrifying, but a global wealth tax on the ultra-rich could bring in 1.7 trillion a year. We need about 7 trillion, give or take, every single year to adapt to and prevent further climate change, right? And just to put that in perspective, we spend between 5 to 7 trillion dollars a year on subsidies
  for the oil and gas, which is just something, oh God, it blows my mind every time I think about that. So if you're wondering where we're going to get that 7 trillion, we could get it from those oil subsidies and add in a little bit of extra on top from taxing the ultra-rich. I'm sorry, but nobody needs a billion dollars. The hashtag eat the rich, I'm on board. Imagine the difference that would make if you could plough it into renewable energy projects
  or to help countries that are already losing their land due to sea level rise. Third, we need to tackle corporate influence. Some of these big corporates that these billionaires are tied to don't exactly have a great track record when it comes to supporting climate policies or taking action, do they? Again, if you look at Cargill and Berkshire Hathaway, they score very poorly when it comes to climate-friendly policy engagement
  because they push back on the changes we need. They have lobbyists who ensure that governments don't really take the steps that we desperately need them to. We need stronger lobbying laws that limit this influence and make sure climate policies don't get watered down by big money. I just can't believe how much money plays a role in elections now and actually democracy in general. That needs to be something that is stopped. That's going to be an interesting one because you're going to need really, really brave politicians to do that. Do we have them in place? Maybe a couple. And then finally,
  this is a big one that Oxfam have come up with and that's rethinking the economic system itself. Now I have heard the phrase, as I'm sure you have, there is no conscious consumerism under capitalism and I feel sort of two ways about that statement. One, I think it gives people a pass, you know, so they say, oh, well, I can't be good so I'm not even going to try, which I think is bullshit and a cop-out. You absolutely can consume better under our current system and all the companies I've ever run are an example of the fact that you
  can be ethical and profitable. But capitalism does come with the idea that growth at all costs and obviously we're in a finite system on a finite planet. So yeah, that's going to come with problems. But the way things work right now, according to Oxfam, is it's designed for the rich to get richer, which is true. And that's at the expense of the planet and everybody else.
  It is by definition exploitative and it doesn't need to be. So we need to put policies in place that put checks on this, ensure that the wealth gap doesn't keep growing, that investments are steered towards interests that are good for the environment, and they are not mutually exclusive to profit, right?
  You can have both. None of this is easy and none of it is going to happen overnight, but those are the sorts of changes that we have done before because don't forget we built this system, right? This isn't a system that was just there for us to use. We created everything, which means we can change everything and I think that's something people forget when they feel powerless, right? And they read stuff like this and they think
  how bad it is. Actually, whilst we do live in one of the safest – I know it doesn't feel like it with all of the genocide going on around the world, we do live in one of the most prosperous, peaceful times in human history. It does not mean it is perfect, but it does mean we are good at solving these problems and we can if we just keep trying and we need to. One of the biggest things you can do is support policies and leaders that are serious about holding high emissions accountable.
  Voting isn't just some civic duty you have and I 100% understand people who don't want to vote because no one stands for what they stand for. I used to be like that but then actually one of my former team members at Ethique showed me that that was not right because there isn't going to be anyone who matches everything but there are people out there, there are politicians who are better for you and absolutely better for other people. So even if you don't agree with a candidate for whatever reason, vote for other people, vote for the person who's
  going to do the best for everybody else, for people and planet. About two days after I recorded this, the American election is going on and I know there's a lot of debate, particularly on the left, right? Because Kamala obviously is continuing on with supporting genocide and continuing to provide the Israeli government with weapons. And sure, Israel has the right to defend itself, but I think we passed that a long, long, long time ago. And I appreciate that as a result, a lot of people do not want to vote for her because it was a continuation of those policies. But
  by not voting or by voting for someone who has no chance of winning and thus splitting the vote so that Donald Trump is that more likely to win, you are picking the worst choice. And I understand why it's complicated for people and why it's hard to make that decision, but sometimes you have to pick the best of a bad bunch. And the other thing to consider, of course,
  is democracy is not a one day thing. You should be demanding better from your politicians day in, day out, for the three years of the election cycle, for the four years of the election cycle, however long, wherever you are. Between elections, democracy isn't just one day
  when you vote, it's every day. That's really important, right? We should be demanding better for Democrats, absolutely. We should be demanding better. I mean, I've been talking exclusively about the American election, but it's not like the New Zealand government is doing a wonderful job when it comes to the environment or social issues or... And I appreciate they have inherited a difficult fiscal environment because of the pandemic, but there are ways to do things.
  But the thing is, it's not hopeless. We have a lot more power than we think. Voting is a lot more power than you think. Yes, remembering your reusable bag is great, but supporting meaningful climate policy with politicians is where the real impact lies.
  And of course, where you spend your money is just as important. The richest individuals, those 50 billionaires I keep talking about, they built their wealth through the industries we buy from. So choose to support companies with solid environmental practices and solid social practices and try and avoid those that don't. Stop purchasing
  from God damn Shien, for example. They really are just one of the worst companies in the world and that might feel small, but if enough people do it, boycotts add up and you can see that in some of the drops in sales that some of the companies that are currently being boycotted are showing. And then again, another incredibly powerful thing that you can do that often gets sort of forgotten about is actually talking about it, right? Sharing what you know is a super simple, effective way to get people thinking about what our
  biggest problems actually are. So when more people understand that a massive chunk of emissions comes from just a tiny fraction of the population, it shifts the focus from, oh, that person didn't forget their bag, they're a terrible person, to, hmm, how am I going to, A, sure, change some things in my own life, but how am I going to start to try and put the focus on the people that are actually causing the majority of the damage?
  Talking about climate change is one of the most powerful things you can do. And I know, I don't know if you're anything like me, but I often feel stupid bringing it up, like what if everybody in the room thinks I'm an idiot and blah, blah, blah, and doesn't believe in climate change or whatever? Well, statistically, 88% of people on average are worried about climate change. So I can almost guarantee you that you're not alone in that room. And even if you are, who gives a shit, because you're right. And it is
  something we need to worry about and talk about more and more. And hey, if you just get someone, one person to think about it, then that was worth doing. At the end of the day, tackling climate change isn't just about the little things we do every day. Although, yes, again, they matter. I am not trying to stop encouraging you to do those things, but it's about using our voices and our votes and our choices to push for change where it is needed the most. Because it's not just an environmental issue, it's massively about people, it's massively about fairness, and just at the bare minimum making sure that everyone
  has a shot at a decent future. It's a big week this week. Just remember, whatever happens, we have way more power than we think. Kia ora kaitiaki. And there you go. I hope you learned something and realised that being green isn't about everything in your pantry matching with those silly glass jars or living in a commune. If that's your jam, fabulous. But sustainability at its heart is just using what you need. If you enjoyed this episode, please don't keep it to yourself and feel free to drop
  me a rating and hit the subscribe button. Kia ora and I'll see you next week.