Climate inequalities don’t have to be accepted. Change is possible. Friends of the Earth have produced a report entitles the Big Climate Plan detailing what could be done in the UK to address climate inequalities. (1) And they have produced another report showing how the costs could be met by taxing those causing the climate crisis (2)
“The “polluter pays” principle is the idea that those most responsible for emissions and pollution should pay the most towards tackling them. The “polluter pays” principle is the idea that those most responsible for emissions and pollution should pay the most towards tackling them.“
The inequalities exposed by the climate crisis are also feeding growing health inequalities. And health inequalities increase wealth inequalities.
“A new [2023] report from the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) reveal[ed] that the health impacts of climate change will be disproportionately felt by disadvantaged communities, significantly exacerbating existing health inequalities. The findings show that vulnerable groups – including people with disabilities, homeless populations, and those in deprived areas – will bear the brunt of extreme weather like heat waves and floods, which are becoming more common due to greenhouse gas emissions. This amplifies existing disparities, where those in poverty already have lower life expectancy.” (1)
The report does highlight that prompt intervention to tackle the issues of the climate crisis could simultaneously improve health outcomes for the most vulnerable. For example
* insulating homes addresses climate change by reducing carbon emissions whilst at the same time providing healthier homes because they will be both warmer and less prone to mould.
transitioning to smaller, electric vehicles – with an increase on good public transport – reduces both carbon emissions and air pollution so improving health outcomes.
if more journeys switched from cars to cycles, the improvements in health would be significant.
If more trees were planted and green spaces secured, more carbon emissions would be absorbed and more rainfall would be absorbed, whilst improving the mental and physical health of nearby residents and workers
Transitioning to a largely plant based diet, would reduce carbon emissions from livestock farming and release land for rewilding, and at the same time improve healthy eating.
The inequalities around wealth and income mean that poorer people tend to live in areas with limited access to green spaces – which are beneficial for health and wellbeing as well for cooler ambient temperatures and absorbing rain – and are less likely to live in those tree-lined streets which similarly alleviate high temperatures and the risks of flooding.
The inequalities around the wealth/ income and the climate crisis around that mean the poorest are more significant impacted by adverse weather conditions.
People with low incomes/ wealth cannot afford to install double glazing or home insulation so when temperatures are uncomfortably hot or cold, they cannot protect themselves. Many live in small badly designed homes that do not allow for a through flow of air during hot weather and equally may have large glass windows allowing in excessive amounts of heat in the summer and cold in the winter. Often these properties may be rented meaning that occupants have to rely on landlords to instal climate adaptions – and then still incur the – possibly unaffordable – costs through increased rents and service charges.
People with low incomes/ wealth cannot afford the upfront capital cost of installing energy – and therefore cost-saving – systems such as heat pumps and solar panels, again meaning that they are continually disadvantaged.
Inequalities vis a vis climate change (and many other issues) also exist between the individual and the company or industry.
It is well known that it is the emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that is causing climate change. To avoid the worsening of this crisis the obvious thing to do would be to stop producing and using the oil and gas that create this pollutant. Yet however much individuals may wish – and petition and campaign – to see that happen (wishing that the economy would transition to one based on renewable energy sources and plastic alternatives) it is the fossil fuel and plastics companies and industries that get the ear of government ministers.
“UK government ministers met with representatives from the oil and gas sector at least 343 times in 2023, according to Global Witness analysis of data collected by Transparency International UK.” (1) This equates to an average of 1.4 meetings per day. At the same time 10 of the UK’s most prominent climate and social justice organisations met with ministers only 33 times (2)
Inequalities vis a vis the climate crisis exist not just between richer and poorer nations, but also between different communities within individual nations. Typically poorer communities struggle more and are more frequently adversely affected by the climate crisis. Whilst richer communities are better insulated against the impact of climate change whilst at the same contributing far more to the problem.
“The wealthiest 1 per cent of people in the UK each produce 11 times the amount of carbon emissions of someone in the poorest half of the population … Their carbon footprint is 6 times that of the national average. Those in the wealthiest 10 per cent – with income after tax of at least £41,000 per year – have a carbon footprint that is more than double the national average and four times that of someone in the poorest half.” (1)
Richer people because they spend more, consuming more goods and services, will generate a larger carbon footprint. At the same time, as influencers and trend setters they encourage others to to mimic their high carbon lifestyles. One clear example of this is the explosion in the number of SUVs that now fill our streets. These began life as a utility vehicle for areas where the ground was rough and unsuitable for regular vehicles. Next they became the new toy for the rich and wealthy. Now they are the must-have for the aspiring classes. So rather than seeing a switch to smaller, less polluting electrical vehicles which would benefit air quality, reduce pollution, and assist in mitigating the affects of climate crisis, we have a increased pollution and higher carbon emissions.
Mitigation and adaption funds may help countries minimise the impact of climate change but they do not per se cover the cost of making good damage caused by climate change. Mitigation and adaption funds may be used to limit flooding for example, but do not pay for replacing buildings and infrastructure damaged by floods, nor pay compensation for loss of income and livelihoods.
For many years poorer, vulnerable countries have been campaigning for the establishment of a Loss and Damage fund whereby the richer countries would contribute towards the cost of climate induced disasters. Finally at in 2022 at COP 27, there was agreement to set up such a Loss and Damage Fund.
What has not yet been agreed is:
Who will be able to access the Fund: richer nations want this limited to the most vulnerable nations
What costs will be covered
Who will pay into the Fund and how much.
As of April 2025 a total of USD $768.40 million has been pledged to the Fund by 27 contributors including the UK who contributed $52 million (1)
A study by the World Economic Forum in 2023 found that over the previous 20 years, extreme weather events globally, like hurricanes, floods and heat waves, had cost the global economy an estimated $2.8 trillion. (2) Whilst that sum would include developed and developing countries alike, it does point to the pitiful size of the Loss and Damage Fund.
“Debt-for-Climate Swaps (DFCS) are an agreement between a sovereign and its creditors that reallocates a portion of ongoing debt obligations toward investments in climate action. Such transactions provide opportunities for countries to enhance both fiscal stability and climate resilience, mobilising critical investment in areas such as renewable energy, urban infrastructure, sustainable agriculture and water security, forest conservation and restoration”. (1)
The biggest such scheme has been undertaken by Ecuador: “The Galapagos conversion … exchanged $1.628 billion in Ecuadorian government bonds for a $656 million impact loan*. The transaction will generate savings to the Ecuadorian fiscus of $1.126 billion through 2041. In return, Ecuador will direct savings of $323 million by 2041 to the conservation of the Galapagos and establish a new endowment fund maturing to $227 million to finance their preservation thereafter.” (2)
*Ecuador obtained a loan of to buy back $1.6 billion US bonds (face value) now valued at $656million because of the decline in Ecuador’s economy. Then Ecuador was provided with a ‘blue loan’ of $656million. Blue Loans are designed such that some of the money will positively improve marine biodiversity so helping to mitigate for climate change; by making such loans, the lender can improve their green credentials. In this instance Ecuador agreed to provide $17.5 million a year to protect the marine protected areas surrounding the Galapagos Islands. (3)
Blue loans – also known as blue bonds – are probably better described as Debt For Nature Swaps (DFNS). There are also Green loans or bonds which can finance Green Loans protecting land based biodiversity. So far they have been more DFNS than infrastructure focused DFCS.
Vulnerable countries weighed down by debt are often ‘encouraged’ to exploit oil and gas reserves as a way of financing their obligations. Uganda, for example, took a $1 billion loan from the IMF in 2021, using some of the money to build the East Africa Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP). Whilst Uganda and its neighbour Tanzania, will eventually get some return from this project, the bulk of the profits (70%) will accrue to Total (62%) and China National Offshore Oil Corporation (8%).(2) At the same time farmers have been displaced from their land, villagers evicted, migration routes for wild animals have been blocked, and vast tracts of the Murchison Falls National Park are at risk from damage and pollution. And the burning of the oil extracted (which will not benefit local people as it will be sold on the international market) will generate over 34 million tons of CO2 emissions per year.
You can support the campaign against this oil pipeline and its climate destroying effects here – https://www.stopeacop.net/
Debt Justice (formerly Drop the Debt which organised the Jubilee Debt Campaign in 2000) has this year (another Jubilee Year) launched the Cancel Debt, Choose Hope campaign.(1) The ask is, sadly, still the same: calling on the richest nations to cancel the debts of the poorest – the most vulnerable. Research shows that lower-income country debt payments have TREBLED over the last decade, and right now fifty-four countries are in crisis. (2)
The injustice of this debt crisis means that interest payments to the rich are made at the expense of the poor. As Bernard Anaba in Ghana recently explained:“Public services are in crisis – pupils aren’t getting exercise books and some schools don’t even have chairs or desks for the children. Food prices have sky-rocketed and in hospitals, patients are asked to pay for medication that is meant to be free.”(3)
The Green Tau 