Climate Inequality: the Rich Get Cooler and the Poor Get Burned

The year 2024 marked the hottest on record in Korea. Yet climate disasters do not strike everyone equally. Those least responsible often bear the heaviest burdens, while those most responsible remain shielded. The climate crisis has thus become a crisis of inequality. This article examines how climate inequality unfolds across generations, regions, and social classes, and underscores the urgent need for a just response.  ......Ed

     The summer of 2024 was the hottest since meteorological observations began in 1973. According to the ‘2024 Abnormal Climate Report’ published by the Korea Meteorological Administration, the national annual average temperature in 2024 was 14.5°C, which was 2.0°C higher than the historical average. Notably, the summer average temperature reached 25.6°C, marking the highest on record. However, we are moving toward an era when such extreme weather is no longer exceptional. This summer, the Korean Peninsula and the rest of the world faced deadly heat waves from early June, the monsoon season disappeared. This phenomenon, where extreme weather becoming uncontrollable, is called ‘climate catastrophe.’What we must pay attention to is that these disasters do not visit everyone equally or fairly. Just as there is wealth inequality, there exists climate inequality as well. Indeed, a recent paper, High-income groups contribute disproportionately to global climate extremes, was published in the journal Nature Climate Change. Social and economic inequality is extending into climate inequality. Facing climate catastrophe that threatens our survival, how should we untangle the tightly intertwined relationship between climate disaster and inequality?

     Climate inequality broadly manifests as a pattern in which countries, groups, and individuals who bear the least responsibility for climate change suffer the greatest damage. Those who actually caused climate disasters enjoy only the benefits, while the most socially vulnerable classes suffer the most damage from climate disasters. We aim to examine this climate inequality by dividing it into generational, regional, and class-based dimensions.

     Firstly, generational climate inequality stems from the accumulation of greenhouse gases emitted into the air. Greenhouse gases persist in the air for decades or even centuries. According to research published in Nature Climate Change, people aged 60 and above contributed to about one-quarter of greenhouse gas emissions in 2005, and ten years later in 2015, this proportion increased to one-third. The results of this report indicate that most of the responsibility for continuously accumulating greenhouse gases and the resulting climate disasters lies with older generations. However, the generation that will suffer greater damage from greenhouse gases is projected to be future generations. The later a person is born, the more rapidly they are likely to experience global warming. Looking at the most extreme greenhouse gas emission scenario, SSP (Shared Socioeconomic Pathways) 5-8.5, a person born in 2020 is predicted to experience approximately three times faster global warming by age 70 compared to someone born in 1950. Additionally, research on Intergenerational Inequality from Extreme Climate Exposure led by Belgian public universities projects that under a 3°C global warming scenario, a 6-year-old child in 2020 will experience more extreme weather events than a 6-year-old child living in pre-industrial climate conditions. Today’s comforts were built on past emissions, but we must reform the system that unfairly shifts the costs onto our children and future generations.

     Second, regional inequality refers to the phenomenon in places where the impact of climate disasters varies by region. This is because each country or region has different capacity levels to properly prepare for climate disasters, depending on their response capabilities. This is called ‘vulnerability,’ and poor regions face higher risks due to limited resources. For this reason, when poor regions are hit by climate crises, their income and asset loss ratios appear much larger compared to wealthy countries. The bigger problem is that the countries where climate disasters occur severely and the regions that cause climate disasters are completely separated. According to research conducted by an international research team including IIASA (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis) and the Swiss Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, two-thirds of the causes of extreme climate phenomena like heat waves between 1990 and 2020 were primarily attributed to greenhouse gases emitted by the top 10% of wealthy individuals. Based on this claim, the research team calculated the CIF (Climate Inequality Factor) by comparing population proportions with actual contributions to extreme climate phenomena. The top 10% recorded a CIF of 6.5, meaning that just 10% of the total population bears 65% of the responsibility for the climate crisis. Particularly, high-income groups residing in G20 countries including the United States and Europe recorded even higher CIFs. The countries responsible for climate disasters never become victim countries, and most responsible countries are developed nations with international influence. This is why the tilted playing field of climate inequality cannot easily be leveled.

     Third, class-based inequality refers to the phenomenon, and the degree of damage from the climate crisis varies according to socioeconomic status. While the social classes that emit large amounts of greenhouse gases are concentrated among relatively high-income groups, the damage from disasters disproportionately affects low-income groups. According to the National Institute of Environmental Research, higher income classes have larger carbon footprints and consume more energy and resources in their daily lives. In contrast, low-income groups often lack adequate response conditions during climate disasters such as heat waves or flooding. They must endure heat waves without cooling systems in old houses or residential environments with poor insulation, and they are more likely to be engaged in outdoor labor, making them more susceptible to direct risks. The situation of low-income children is particularly severe. UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund) officially announced that approximately 45% of children worldwide are exposed to extremely high climate risks, and pointed out that most of these children are in poverty or underdeveloped environments. These figures clearly illustrate the reality that climate disasters are concentrated among socially vulnerable groups.

     Climate crisis research results show that beyond the increase in greenhouse gases and frequent natural disasters, economically and environmentally vulnerable groups are more exposed to damage from climate change. Therefore, recently, the concept of ‘climate justice’ has gained attention, which considers social context and inequality together when responding to the climate crisis. This is a movement to recognize the imbalance between the causes and damages of the climate crisis and to justly redistribute the resulting responsibilities and responses. However, responses in reality remain inadequate. For example, at the 15th UN Climate Change Conference in 2009, developed countries promised to provide $100 billion annually by 2020 to help developing countries respond to climate change, but this goal was barely achieved only in 2023, three years later. Even then, it was criticized for being loan-based and biased toward greenhouse gas reduction, inadequate for adaptation responses in vulnerable countries. Developed countries continue to show passive attitudes toward realizing climate justice by avoiding legal responsibility or delaying substantial financial burden-sharing. Due to this structural imbalance, interest in ‘climate care’ policies is also growing. In Korea, policies such as expanding heat wave shelters, supporting residential environment improvements for low-income groups, and safety measures for outdoor workers are being promoted. Climate crisis response is expanding beyond environmental protection to securing social equity. For a sustainable future, effective policies that can mitigate the impact of climate disasters concentrated on socially vulnerable groups are required, along with greenhouse gas reduction efforts. Domestic and international discussions and cooperation are more urgently needed for a just and inclusive transition.

Choi Ye-jin (ST Reporter)

cloe04@soongsil.ac.kr

Ihm Jae-young (ST Cub-Reporter)

pausoon@soongsil.ac.kr