A shocking study from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology reveals that countries with larger economic disparities may produce fewer carbon emissions. The findings challenge widely held beliefs about democracy and climate change.
A new study from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) has uncovered a paradox in the fight against climate change: more equal societies might be exacerbating the problem. Indra de Soysa, a professor in NTNU’s Department of Sociology and Political Science, argues that efforts to reduce economic inequality could inadvertently increase carbon emissions.
The new research, recently published in the World Development journal, confronts the widely held notion that democratic societies — where wealth, power and opportunities are more evenly distributed — are inherently better at reducing their carbon footprints.
According to de Soysa, this belief is ideologically driven and based on a flawed premise.
“Some people hold that a rich power elite stands in the way of climate action, and that democracies can more easily implement measures such as banning emissions or raising taxes,” de Soysa said in a news release.
de Soysa’s analysis of data from approximately 170 countries between 1990 and 2020, utilizing climate figures from the World Bank, shows a different picture. He found that countries with significant economic and political disparities tend to have lower emissions compared to more equitable and democratic nations.
“Increased per capita income in a country is clearly and unmistakably linked to higher carbon emissions. The more money a society has, the more it contributes to carbon emissions. More money automatically leads to increased consumption,” de Soysa added.
The study reveals that richer, more democratic societies, which generate wealth and distribute it more evenly, also see increased consumption. This higher consumption translates to greater carbon emissions, fueled by the production of goods and services that wealthier populations demand.
“Greater freedom leads to greater economic activity, and this increases both consumption and emissions from production. Greater equality in a society exacerbates this, as more people acquire what others have. Just imagine the day when Indians start consuming as much as the Chinese do,” added de Soysa.
The research raises critical ethical questions: should societies maintain or even increase economic disparities to protect the climate?
de Soysa calls this conundrum a “wicked problem,” stressing the moral and practical complexities it introduces. While reducing inequality is a noble goal, it may come at the expense of greater environmental harm under current technological capabilities.
de Soysa advocates for technological innovations as the key to resolving this dilemma.
“Aside from reducing consumption, which can happen as a result of war, pandemics, stock market crashes and so on, technological changes are the only solution I can see,” he concluded.
The findings are likely to ignite significant debate among policymakers, environmentalists and economists, as the world grapples with the interconnected challenges of inequality and climate change.