The Environmental Cost of Income Inequality

The systemic issue of income inequality has thrived in our society endlessly in the growing pursuit of profit. Stemming off factors like gender, race, class and wealth, this phenomenon has settled deeply in the crevices of our society, despite the countless pledges organisations have made towards dissolving it. Statistics display that the disparities in wealth and income are not only limited to developing countries and are prevalent globally, exemplified in how the richest 1% of citizens worldwide have double the amount of wealth as 6.9 billion people in the other 99% (Lawson et al, 2020). Even though it is targeted as a UN sustainable development goal, income inequality is not often considered to be a sustainability issue.

While only a decade away from 2030 - the goal year that the United Nations has set for achieving its 17 development goals - not many steps have been undertaken towards reaching the target: an “inclusive, transformative economy”, and institutions are not held accountable for their lack of assertiveness. So the burning question remains; was this global partnership only formed to satiate public discomposure regarding the slumping state of world climate?

Though heavily discussed, how does income inequality rank on the severity scale? 50% of global emissions are caused by the richest 10% of the world population (figure 2). However, when comparing countries individually, more equal countries like Japan and Germany are found to pollute less on average with all socioeconomic classes contributing towards higher sustainability.

In parallel, poorer regions of countries are often more prone to droughts, floods and higher levels of pollution, alluding that those who contribute the least to unsustainability are first to be subjected to the dangers of it. Disadvantaged and discriminated groups find themselves living in high-danger areas like “low-elevation coastal zones” due to financial priorities (Neumann et al, 2015). While they are more exposed to such climate hazards, when a calamity hits, they are less likely to recover from the negative impacts of it, further accentuating the level of inequality they face (Islam and Winkel, 2017). This creates a self-perpetuating, vicious cycle where inequality-caused damage further grows the inequality itself (figure 1).

But why do countries with higher inequality face higher levels of unsustainability? In such countries, societies hold high consumerist ideals, therein placing consumption and status on a pedestal. This consumption is often unsustainable in nature. For example, a UK survey sampling 2000 women reveals that on average, the majority of clothes bought are only worn seven times before being discarded (Mail Online, 2015). These ideals not only lead to citizens working 400 hours more each year to cater to these demands, but it also correlates less-equal countries with the production of high amounts of waste as shown in figure 3 (Dorling, 2014).

These are not the only costs of consumerism however. Higher levels of CO2 emissions are experienced due to overconsumption. In the US, emissions per person are twice as high compared to the Japanese and three times as much as the French. These results arise from individual lifestyles in well-off countries that lead to greater energy waste, such as heating homes more and taking more flights (Dorling, 2017).

It may seem apparent that these consumption-centric habits are profitable for companies - so why should businesses care? Waves of inequality have widened the gap between the rich and the poor which may consequently evaporate the middle class. This can lead to the dissolvement of many businesses that are targeted towards them. Hence, businesses should put their best foot forward to aid the formation of a healthy economic ecosystem where sustainability and profitability are balanced.

As established, unsustainable methods need to be ubiquitously dismantled from all socioeconomic classes. This would include incentivising rich people into lowering their carbon footprint through sacrificing aspects of their lifestyle and employing sustainable corporate practices. For the lower socioeconomic classes, this effort could be lowering the prices of greener goods.

Another method that would directly target the consumerist ideals that these inequitable countries hold is remoulding social norms. A Harvard Business Review article on green consumers mentions the desire of humans to fit in and conform to surrounding behaviours. Through social nudging, their motivations can be leveraged towards forming sustainable, long-term habits and growing a green community. Merely encouraging one habit can induce a domino effect and convince a greater proportion of consumers to engage in more such initiatives (White et al, 2019).

Overall, inequality is correlated with damaging levels of emissions and waste which are a result of consumerist societal values. These hazards ironically form a cycle of self-perpetuating inequality. This vicious cycle needs to be broken at one stage: either by decreasing the impacts of these ‘lifestyle choices’ or by decreasing the inequality at its root. It should be noted that diminishing inequality is a process that requires institutional and political changes which could take innumerable years, despite the SDGs’ target deadline rapidly approaching.

Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the attention on the SDGs may lag further as countries focus on reviving their economies from deep recessions. However, the UK has seen this as an opportunity to form a sustainability-focused recovery plan. The government has just released a £2bn green home grant which will go towards making households more energy efficient and save on energy bills (Giordano, 2020). Knowing that the UK’s economy is amongst one of the worst hit, it would be intriguing to witness whether the amalgamation of sustainability and macroeconomic growth policies can necessitate the level of growth required to recover from the recession.

By Sania Zaffer

Citations:

Dorling, D., 2014. Inequality And The 1% By Danny Dorling. [online] Available at: <http://www.dannydorling.org/books/onepercent/> [Accessed 17 July 2020].

Dorling, D., 2017. Is Inequality Bad For The Environment?. [online] the Guardian. Available at: <https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/jul/04/is-inequality-bad-for-the-environment> [Accessed 17 July 2020].

Giordano, C., 2020. How Can Government’S Green Money Help Me Insulate My House?. [online] The Independent. Available at: <https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/green-homes-grant-funding-rishi-sunak-vouchers-a9608906.html> [Accessed 17 July 2020].

Islam, S. and Winkel, J., (2020). Climate Change And Social Inequality | Multimedia Library - United Nations Department Of Economic And Social Affairs. [online] Un.org. Available at: <https://www.un.org/development/desa/publications/working-paper/wp152> [Accessed 17 July 2020].

Lawson et al. (2020) Time To Care | Oxfam International. [online] Available at: <https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/time-care> [Accessed 12 July 2020].

Mail Online. (2015). Women Who Ditch Clothes They've Worn Just Seven Times. [online] Available at: <https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3117645/Women-ditch-clothes-ve-worn-just-seven-times-Items-left-shelf-buyer-feels-ve-weight-ve-bought-whim.html> [Accessed 17 July 2020].

Neumann, B., Vafeidis, A., Zimmermann, J. and Nicholls, R., (2015). Future Coastal Population Growth And Exposure To Sea-Level Rise And Coastal Flooding - A Global Assessment.

Oxfam International. (2015). Extreme Carbon Inequality | Oxfam International. [online] Available at: <https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/extreme-carbon-inequality> [Accessed 17 July 2020].

White, K., Hardisty, D. and Habib, R., (2019). The Elusive Green Consumer. [online] Harvard Business Review. Available at: <https://hbr.org/2019/07/the-elusive-green-consumer> [Accessed 17 July 2020].