Rich individuals in all countries must pay more to tackle the climate crisis, whether through taxes or charges on consumption, one of the architects of the Paris agreement has said.

There is a growing consensus on the need for some kind of global wealth tax, with Brazil, which will host the Cop climate summit next year, an enthusiastic supporter.

Meanwhile, poor countries are struggling to raise the estimated $1tn (£785bn) a year of external finance needed to help them cut emissions and cope with the impacts of the climate crisis.

Another proposal is for a frequent flyer levy, as the richest people tend to take far more flights – in any year about half of the people in the UK do not fly, for instance. Laurence Tubiana, the chief executive of the European Climate Foundation, said a levy could be targeted at business class and first class seats.

  • Codilingus@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    5 months ago

    “Meanwhile, poor countries are struggling to raise the estimated $1tn (£785bn) a year of external finance needed to help them cut emissions and cope with the impacts of the climate crisis.”

    It felt so sad to read this.

    • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yup. Rich Western nations giving the big middle finger to those who can barely afford to care for their people is pretty on-brand for 21st century capitalism.

      • demonsword@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        it’s worthwhile to remember that said rich nations only became rich by heavily exploiting the global south

        • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Is prefer to phrase that differently. Most rich nations had the ability to build robust economies with steady growth without exploiting the global south… they just exploited the global south to get even richer.

          It’s not required that someone else suffer for a nation to get richer - and that’s what makes it even more disappointing that that exploitation went forward.

          • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Colonization - historically done by Britain, Portugal, Belgium, etc - did, in fact, exploit huge swathes of the south in order to get rich.

            • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              5 months ago

              Absolutely, and that’s awful and wrong.

              My point was that wealth and standard of living increases don’t require colonization. They could have progressed without needing to oppress native peoples.

                • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Hey no worries, as someone with ADHD you’d be amazed how often I accidentally imply exactly the opposite of what I state… and my communication isn’t always the clearest.

                  • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    Yeah, I have ADHD too. I misunderstand all the time, and it’s only getting worse with age.