Image of the Green Party’s Carla Denyer on BBC Question Time.
Co-leader of the Green Party, Carla Denyer, said:
“As the COP28 climate conference gets under way this week, governments can no longer ignore the very large elephant in the room – that it is a super-rich elite who are super-heating the planet.
“Private jets are the favoured form of transport by this super-rich elite and are the ultimate symbol of the ‘climate inequality’ that is not only leading to the breakdown of our climate but is also deeply unfair. A short trip on a private jet will produce more carbon than the average person emits all year.
“The Green Party wants the UK government to challenge the grotesque inequality driving climate breakdown. By pledging to impose a ban on all private jets taking off or landing at UK airports, the government would send a clear message to global leaders at COP28 that the super-rich cannot be allowed to continue with their lavish and destructive lifestyles at the expense of the rest of the global population.
“While the richest can use their vast wealth to cocoon themselves, the poorest have nowhere to hide from the impacts of climate chaos. COP28 needs to ensure those with the greatest responsibility for the climate crisis end their destructive ways. And we must redistribute the price paid by the heaviest polluters towards helping those on the front line of climate breakdown and to hasten the transition to a fairer, greener world.”
Climate activists of Extinction Rebellion hold a protest action against private jets at the ExecuJet Aviation Group in Zaventem, near Brussels Airport, on February 13, 2023. (Photo: Nicolas Maeterlinck/Belga Mag/AFP via Getty Images)
“The super-rich are plundering and polluting the planet to the point of destruction and it is those who can least afford it who are paying the highest price.”
The richest 1% of the global population produced 16% of the world’s carbon dioxide in 2019, generating as much planet-warming pollution as the poorest two-thirds of humanity, according to a report released Monday by Oxfam International.
Climate Equality: A Planet for the 99% describes the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency and runaway inequality as “twin crises” that are leaving those least responsible for planetary breakdown to bear the worst consequences, from catastrophic extreme weather to food and water shortages.
“If no action is taken, the richest will continue to burn through the carbon we have left to use while keeping the global temperature below the safe limit of 1.5°C, destroying any chance of ending poverty and ensuring equality,” the report warns. “The world needs an equal transformation. Only a radical reduction in inequality, transformative climate action and fundamentally shifting our economic goals as a society can save our planet while ensuring wellbeing for all.”
Using the latest available emissions data from the Stockholm Environment Institute, Oxfam calculated that it would take roughly 1,500 years for a person in the bottom 99% to produce as much CO2 pollution as the world’s top billionaires create in a year. The annual emissions of the global super-rich cancel out the emissions-reduction impact of nearly a million onshore wind turbines, according to the report.
The report also estimates that the emissions of the top 1% in 2019 will cause 1.3 million heat-related excess deaths in the coming decades, with most of the deaths occurring in the current decade.
Oxfam noted that transportation is far and away the largest source of pollution from the ultra-rich, whose private jets, yachts, and fleets of gas-guzzling cars are highly carbon-intensive. Experts at Indiana University estimated in 2021 that a “superyacht” emits more than 7,000 tons of CO2 per year.
Climate activists have also increasingly targeted private jet travel as a key source of luxury emissions. Oxfam observed in its new report that “a short trip on a private jet will produce more carbon than the average person emits all year.”
The report comes in the wake of news from the World Meteorological Organization that global greenhouse gas concentrations reached an all-time high once again last year, underscoring the need for dramatic action to curb fossil fuel use and transition to renewable energy.
Chiara Liguori, Oxfam’s senior climate justice policy adviser, said in a statement that “the super-rich are plundering and polluting the planet to the point of destruction and it is those who can least afford it who are paying the highest price.”
“The huge scale of climate inequality revealed in the report highlights how the two crises are inextricably linked—fueling one another—and the urgent need to ensure the rising costs of climate change fall on those most responsible and able to pay,” said Liguori.
“Governments globally, including the U.K., need to tackle the twin crises of inequality and climate change by targeting the excessive emissions of the super-rich by taxing them more,” Liguori added. “This would raise much-needed revenue that could be directed to a range of vital social spending needs, including a fair switch to clean, renewable energy as well as fulfilling our international commitments to support communities who are already bearing the brunt of the climate crisis.”
Oxfam’s report calls on governments to pursue a “radical increase in equality” by imposing wealth taxes on the richest 1% as well as steep inheritance, land, and property taxes. The report also recommends taxing or banning private jet travel, space tourism, and other polluting luxury activities and imposing “permanent, automatic” windfall profit levies on major corporations that often take advantage of crises such as wars and pandemics.
Additionally, Oxfam urged governments to invest heavily in establishing universal programs—from healthcare to education to childcare—and transitioning away from fossil fuels. The group said that rich countries must honor their commitments to provide climate financing to poor nations facing the brunt of the climate crisis and support debt cancellation and other relief measures.
“Unless we rapidly reduce carbon emissions,” the report states, “we will exhaust the amount of carbon we can emit without triggering climate breakdown within just five years.”
Gianluca Grimalda, a researcher with the Kiel Institute for the World Economy in Germany, has refused to fly home for a meeting on October 2, 2023 from his field trip in Papua New Guinea, citing the fossil fuel emissions generated by aviation. (Photo: Scientist Rebellion)
“I am prepared to pay this price, if it helps raising awareness among the public and the societal leadership on the desperate situation we are in,” said Giancarlo Grimalda.
A climate researcher based in Kiel, Germany said Monday that he was prepared to lose his job at a globalization think tank, after his employer gave him an ultimatum and demanded he go against his climate-based objection to aviation travel in order to return to his place of work—a requirement at least one critic said was rooted in retaliation for the scientist’s activism.
Gianluca Grimalda has been working on a field assignment in Papua New Guinea for the past six months, studying the relationship between globalization, climate change, and social cohesion for his employer, the Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW). He traveled to Papua New Guinea without the use of airplanes and has planned to get back to Germany the same way, boarding cargo ships, ferries, trains, and coaches to avoid 3.6 tonnes of carbon emissions.
Grimalda was originally scheduled to be finished with his work on September 10, but said in an essay on Monday that he received permission from the head of his department to remain in Papua New Guinea after wrapping up the project and noted that he is able to complete his work while traveling.
Nevertheless, on Friday the president of IfW informed Grimalda that he was required to be back in Kiel on Monday, which would require him to board a plane—a demand that he said ignores the climate impact of aviation travel and the effects already being felt by communities across the globe, including in Papua New Guinea.
“Traveling by plane would produce around four tons of carbon dioxide—the greenhouse gas responsible for global warming,” wrote Grimalda. “In my outbound journey, I limited my emission to two tons by traveling over land and sea for 35 days over 16,0000 of the 22,000 kilometers. In my inbound journey I plan to cover the entire distance without catching a plane, which would limit carbon dioxide emissions to 400 kilograms—ten times less than traveling by plane.”
By resolving to carry out his “slow-travel” plans instead of flying back to Kiel, Grimalda said he is risking his job.
“I know that most people would swallow the bitter pill, take a plane, and go ahead with their work—both as a professional and as an activist,” wrote Grimalda. “With this job, I have enough economic stability and spare time to pursue environmental causes. Nevertheless, I believe that we have reached the point where instrumental rationality is no longer applicable. The most recent scientific evidence says that we have transgressed six out of nine planetary boundaries and that several ecosystems are close to collapse (or likely past their point of collapse) because of temperature rise—in turn caused by greenhouse gases emissions.”
Grimalda acknowledged that his individual refusal to support the airline industry is no match for the continued emissions of the sector as well as fossil fuel giants, industrial farming, and other corporate actors.
“My decision not to catch a plane will mean close to nothing for the protection of the environment,” he wrote. “‘That plane will fly even if you have not boarded it,’ many people have already told me. This is true, but giving less money to the aviation industry may mean fewer planes in the future. In any case, all the science I know, all the evidence I see, point to the fact that we are in [an] emergency. In [an] emergency, extraordinary actions should be taken. That is why, with enormous sadness, I have decided not to take a plane and face all the consequences this will lead to.”
“I am prepared to pay this price, if it helps raising awareness among the public and the societal leadership on the desperate situation we are in,” Grimalda added. “It is my act of love to the current and future generations, to the animal species under threat of extinction, to the idea of humanity that I instinctively and undeservedly abide by.”
Grimalda and direct action group Scientist Rebellion went public with the researcher’s dilemma on the same day the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) in the U.S. released a report on private jet travel out of Laurence G. Hanscom Field near Boston, the largest private aviation field in New England.
Constrasting with Grimalda’s commitment to reduce his support for carbon-intensive activities, IPS found that over 18 months, private jet owners and operators were responsible for an estimated 106,676 tons of carbon emissions, with half of those flights used for recreational or luxury travel. More than 40% of the flights were less than an hour long.
Climate groups in the area are currently pushing to ensure developers don’t expand Hanscom in order to avoid even more planet-destroying emissions.
It's time to stop private jets–at Hanscom field and everywhere their carbon-spewing engines go! https://t.co/xOhjWngTSN
Grimalda told Scientist Rebellion that IfW has withheld his pay for the month of September without notice.
I'm even more saddened by @kielinstitute, as I've just realised they have withheld my September payment without even communicating it to me. Do I really deserve this treatment for having been overly zealous in finishing up my fieldwork with the desired sample size? 138/
Julia Steinberger, a lead author of the latest report by the International Panel on Climate Change—which reiterated that “human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gasses, have unequivocally caused global warming” and warned that “approximately 3.3 to 3.6 billion people live in contexts that are highly vulnerable to climate change”—said it was “extraordinary that a research institute threatens to dismiss a researcher for doing his job too diligently and for avoiding flying during a climate emergency.”
She added that she believes IfW aims to “retaliate for Gianluca’s past participation in civil disobedience on climate change with Scientist Rebellion.”
Grimalda has taken part in actions such as a blockade of the entrance of a biofuel refinery controlled by Eni, Italy’s energy company.
The researcher expressed hope that his latest action “will sound yet another alarm bell to the ears of an inactive political leadership.”
“As a scientist, I feel I have the moral responsibility to be proactive in sounding such alarms,” Grimalda wrote. “It is true that thus far hundreds, if not thousands, of protests have all but gone unheard and have changed very little. Nevertheless, ‘social tipping points’ have existed for much progressive social change and things have changed rapidly for the good after a critical mass of support has been garnered.”
Rishi Sunak is considering weakening some of the government’s key green commitments in a major policy shift.
…
First, the government would push the ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars – currently set to come into force in 2030 – back to 2035. The 2030 date has been government policy since 2020.
Second, the government would significantly weaken the plan to phase out the installation of gas boilers by 2035, saying that they only want 80% to be phased out by that year.
Third, homeowners and landlords would be told that there will be no new energy efficiency regulations on homes. Ministers had been considering imposing fines on landlords who fail to upgrade their properties to a certain level of energy efficiency.
Fourth, the 2026 ban on off-grid oil boilers will be delayed to 2035, with only an 80% phase out target at that date.
In addition, Britons will be told that there will be no new taxes to discourage flying, no government policies to change people’s diets and no measures to encourage carpooling.
Mr Sunak is also likely to rule out what he sees as burdensome recycling schemes.
Prime Minister Rishi “Biggles” Sunak says it’s absolutely fine for him to use a chopper instead of getting a train because he’s “running the country”
…
Climate change activists say Rishi’s jetsetting is unnecessarily pumping harmful CO2 into the atmosphere.
Liberal Democrat transport spokesman Wera Hobhouse raged: “The Prime Minister just cannot help himself. He should catch a train for once to see what the rest of us have to put up with.
“When you catch private flights to Southampton and Dorset, you know you have a problem.”
