Impact of income inequality on climate change action

The world has known about human-caused climate change since the 1980s.

The increase in CO2 and methane levels in the atmosphere, referred to as greenhouse gases (GHGs), are the primary cause. We are now seeing the consequences in greater and increasing frequency, and severity of droughts, floods, storms and wildfires and GHG levels continue to increase.

Why is the world not moving more quickly to attack the problem?

The answer differs between countries. In wealthy countries one of the prime obstacles is income inequality. In 2009, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, two British social scientists, published “The Spirit Level: Why equality is better for everyone.” Looking through the social science literature, they found that beyond a certain level of affluence, economic growth and average income do not contribute to well-being (health, longevity, happiness).

However, as a country’s wealth increases, diseases of poverty (tuberculosis, cholera, measles, etc.) disappear diseases of affluence (heart disease, stroke, obesity) become diseases of the poor.

Wilkinson and Pickett looked at the disparities within a country. They looked at a wide range of studies of social indicators to see if they were correlated with income inequality. The measure of inequality they used was the income of the richest 20% of a country divided by the poorest 20%.

They compared 23 wealthy countries and, separately, the 50 states of the United States. The countries showed levels of inequality, in 2007-2009, ranging from 3.5 in Japan (the lowest), Sweden at 4 and Canada at 5.5 to the UK at 7, the U.S. at 8.5 and Singapore at 9.5. They looked at 11 social indicators:

• Level of trust

• Rate of mental illness including drug addiction and alcoholism

• Life expectancy

• Lnfant mortality

• Rate of obesity

• Children’s educational performance

• Rate of teenage birth

• Rate of homicide

• Rate of imprisonment

• Social mobility

• The United Nations index of child well-being

Then they correlated those indicators with each country’s (and each U.S. states’) level of income inequality and found significant correlations in all cases.

Why were countries with greater levels of inequality more violent, more unhealthy, less well educated, have lower levels of trust and higher levels of incarceration? The answer could not be because the countries with greater income inequality were not wealthy enough. There was no correlation between social indicators and average income in those countries.

The authors noted the reasons were different for poorer countries where income equality meant having enough to eat, which was rarely the case in wealthy countries.

A large number of studies backed up the conclusion that income inequality affected the social status of individuals. That led to multiple psychological effects, which resulted in lower levels of all social indicators. People are concerned about, and affected by, how others see them.

Here is an example. If you live in a mud hut, and your only means of transportation is walking, you might feel proud of yourself if everyone lives in a similar manner. However, if your neighbours drive cars, fly to distant destinations and live in a large house, you might feel ashamed. You would definitely feel the system is not fair. And the data bears that out.

It is worth noting the data used by the authors were collected approximately 16 years ago. Income inequality continues to become more extreme. In the four years since the COVID-19 epidemic began, the wealth of the 67 Canadian billionaires in 2024 (according to Forbes magazine) increased by 51%. In the last 10 years, for every $100 increase in wealth in Canada, $34 went to the richest 1% and $5 to the bottom 50%.

One reason for that is that the top marginal income tax bracket and the corporate tax rate have been repeatedly reduced. In Canada, the top marginal income tax bracket has gone from 90% between 1945 and 1963, to 70% between 1965 and 1981, to 50% between 1982 and 1986 and fluctuated between 31% and 40% since 1987.

What does that mean? Consider the high rates of incarceration and gun violence in the U.S. The political “left” attributes that to the ease of obtaining guns. The political “right” attributes it to mental illness. Both may be contributors, but ultimately the level of income inequality in the U.S. should result in more mental illness, more gun violence, more crime and more incarceration. Switzerland has similar numbers of guns per capita as the U.S. without the gun violence.

What does that have to do with climate action?? As levels of income inequality have increased, levels of trust have decreased, polarization has increased and the result is it is hard for Canadians to even agree that climate change is real.

A return to greater taxation of the wealthy, resulting in decreased income inequality, is a necessity if we are to make climate action a priority in Canada and many other countries.

Eli Pivnick is a former research entomologist, high school teacher and a member of Climate Action Now! North Okanagan.