According to most metrics, economic inequalities across the world have been declining since the late 1980s.
This has been driven by decreasing inequalities between countries – due to rapid economic growth in Asia – and has occurred despite increasing inequalities within a number of countries.
However, this trend could be reversed by the impacts of climate change.
While the repercussions of a warming climate are being felt in all corners of the world, the scale of these impacts on different countries, regions, communities and individuals varies hugely. The degree of economic inequality in the future will largely depend on how well different groups can adapt.
In a new review study, published in Environmental Research Letters, we analysed the existing literature and gathered evidence on whether, where and how climate change exacerbates economic inequality.
We find robust evidence that climate change impacts do indeed increase economic inequality and disproportionately affect the poor – both globally and within countries on all continents.
Climate change increases inequalities locally and globally
Our review covers 127 peer-reviewed studies into climate change and inequality.
These research papers cover a wide range of geographies, climate impacts, types of economic inequality measured (such as income disparities, differences in consumption or welfare disparities), methods used (such as econometric models or surveys) and findings.
The vast majority of studies confirm that climate change is exacerbating economic inequalities or hitting the poorest the hardest. This finding holds true across regions, types of physical impacts, sectors, types of inequalities and assessment methods. It is particularly prominent in studies that compare the impact of climate change across countries.
There are only two studies that find that climate change reduces inequality, but they focus on specific local circumstances – that is, flooding in Pakistan or price disparities among fishers and traders in Mexico.
Similarly, four papers find that the wealthy – whether households or countries – are more affected by climate change than the poor. However, these instances are exceptions and mostly limited to specific circumstances. For example, one study shows that the tropical cyclone Bulbul in Bangladesh caused higher losses for richer shrimp farmers, because they had larger farms.
The chart below summarises these overarching results across the 127 studies, categorised by the percentage of studies showing a negative (red), positive (blue) or mixed (yellow) impact on inequality. Orange indicates a finding that does not fit one of the categories, while grey shows studies that could not reach a conclusion.
The different bars represent the geographical focus of the different studies. Most of the studies we reviewed either look at the global picture (46) or focus on individual countries (44).
When it comes to global studies, the consensus is that climate change is widening inequalities or affecting the poor the most, with around 78% of the papers reaching this conclusion.
Some studies also highlight other groups being disproportionately impacted by climate change, such as rural communities, urban populations, women or specific regions and sectors.
However, there’s a minority of papers that remain inconclusive about both the impact of climate change on inequalities and which groups are most affected.
When it comes to national studies, the trend remains consistent: around 68% of these papers find that climate change is driving up economic inequality or hitting the poorest the hardest (30 out of 44 papers).
As the map below shows, this holds true in all parts of the world. The purple shading indicates the number of studies finding a negative climate impact on inequality for each country.
The countries with the highest number of studies (more than five) showing that climate change increases economic inequality or disproportionately affects the poor are China, Brazil, Ethiopia and the US.
Different climate impacts contribute to inequality
Looking at the breakdown of studies, we found that the percentage of papers pinpointing a particular climate impact as exacerbating inequality or affecting the poor more significantly ranges from 60% for changes in rainfall to 89% for sea level rise.
You can see this in the left-hand chart below, which shows the findings of the literature review separated by climate impact. The right-hand chart shows the findings separated by sector. The categories are the same as in the earlier chart.
A majority of studies focus on the impact of rising temperature, with 72% of these concluding that temperature changes worsen economic inequality or affect the poor the most.
Most of the studies that find a reduction in inequality concern extreme weather events. This is often because these studies assess the impact on physical assets, which are predominantly owned by the wealthiest.
There are several channels through which biophysical climate change impacts translate into economic effects. These channels include broad economic effects that influence all sectors, changes in agricultural revenues due to factors such as crop yield declines, impacts on labour productivity, changes to infrastructure and physical assets, shifts in energy demand or water availability.
We found that studies identifying labour productivity or energy as the main channel through which climate change affects economic inequalities overwhelmingly conclude that inequalities increase or that the poor are more impacted.
A decline in labour productivity may indeed increase inequality if it disproportionately affects low-skilled workers, especially those who work outdoors or in non-air-conditioned environments.
Notably, a large proportion of the studies where physical assets are identified as the main channel suggest that inequality actually decreases due to climate change or that the wealthy suffer more. This is because rich individuals tend to face greater losses due to the higher value of their property.
Tackling climate impacts on inequality
Our investigation into the impacts of climate change on economic inequality was motivated by the need to better understand the climate change impacts are distributed across the world. This provides the other side of the coin to the effects of mitigation policies on inequality, which are often more widely discussed.
The evidence strongly indicates that the impacts of a warming climate are regressive across countries. Tackling the impacts of climate change on economic inequality will demand substantial policy changes and financial resources.
At the national level, policymakers will need to ensure that adaptation finance and loss and damage compensation effectively reach low-income households to reduce their vulnerability and increase their resilience to climate change impacts.
The results of our review underscore the importance of policymakers integrating climate risk management strategies into the design of “climate-proof” social programmes in poor regions, which are crucial for achieving climate justice objectives.
Of course, other forms of inequality beyond economic inequality, such as gender inequality, are important and interact with climate change, but this is a topic for another review.
The post Guest post: How climate change could reverse gains in global inequality appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Guest post: How climate change could reverse gains in global inequality
Climate Change
DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report
Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.
This week
Blazing heat hits Europe
FANNING THE FLAMES: Wildfires “fanned by a heatwave and strong winds” caused havoc across southern Europe, Reuters reported. It added: “Fire has affected nearly 440,000 hectares (1,700 square miles) in the eurozone so far in 2025, double the average for the same period of the year since 2006.” Extreme heat is “breaking temperature records across Europe”, the Guardian said, with several countries reporting readings of around 40C.
HUMAN TOLL: At least three people have died in the wildfires erupting across Spain, Turkey and Albania, France24 said, adding that the fires have “displaced thousands in Greece and Albania”. Le Monde reported that a child in Italy “died of heatstroke”, while thousands were evacuated from Spain and firefighters “battled three large wildfires” in Portugal.
UK WILDFIRE RISK: The UK saw temperatures as high as 33.4C this week as England “entered its fourth heatwave”, BBC News said. The high heat is causing “nationally significant” water shortfalls, it added, “hitting farms, damaging wildlife and increasing wildfires”. The Daily Mirror noted that these conditions “could last until mid-autumn”. Scientists warn the UK faces possible “firewaves” due to climate change, BBC News also reported.
Around the world
- GRID PRESSURES: Iraq suffered a “near nationwide blackout” as elevated power demand – due to extreme temperatures of around 50C – triggered a transmission line failure, Bloomberg reported.
- ‘DIRE’ DOWN UNDER: The Australian government is keeping a climate risk assessment that contains “dire” implications for the continent “under wraps”, the Australian Financial Review said.
- EXTREME RAINFALL: Mexico City is “seeing one of its heaviest rainy seasons in years”, the Washington Post said. Downpours in the Japanese island of Kyushu “caused flooding and mudslides”, according to Politico. In Kashmir, flash floods killed 56 and left “scores missing”, the Associated Press said.
- SOUTH-SOUTH COOPERATION: China and Brazil agreed to “ensure the success” of COP30 in a recent phone call, Chinese state news agency Xinhua reported.
- PLASTIC ‘DEADLOCK’: Talks on a plastic pollution treaty have failed again at a summit in Geneva, according to the Guardian, with countries “deadlocked” on whether it should include “curbs on production and toxic chemicals”.
15
The number of times by which the most ethnically-diverse areas in England are more likely to experience extreme heat than its “least diverse” areas, according to new analysis by Carbon Brief.
Latest climate research
- As many as 13 minerals critical for low-carbon energy may face shortages under 2C pathways | Nature Climate Change
- A “scoping review” examined the impact of climate change on poor sexual and reproductive health and rights in sub-Saharan Africa | PLOS One
- A UK university cut the carbon footprint of its weekly canteen menu by 31% “without students noticing” | Nature Food
(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)
Captured
Factchecking Trump’s climate report
A report commissioned by the US government to justify rolling back climate regulations contains “at least 100 false or misleading statements”, according to a Carbon Brief factcheck involving dozens of leading climate scientists. The report, compiled in two months by five hand-picked researchers, inaccurately claims that “CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed” and misleadingly states that “excessively aggressive [emissions] mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial”80
Spotlight
Does Xi Jinping care about climate change?
This week, Carbon Brief unpacks new research on Chinese president Xi Jinping’s policy priorities.
On this day in 2005, Xi Jinping, a local official in eastern China, made an unplanned speech when touring a small village – a rare occurrence in China’s highly-choreographed political culture.
In it, he observed that “lucid waters and lush mountains are mountains of silver and gold” – that is, the environment cannot be sacrificed for the sake of growth.
(The full text of the speech is not available, although Xi discussed the concept in a brief newspaper column – see below – a few days later.)
In a time where most government officials were laser-focused on delivering economic growth, this message was highly unusual.
Forward-thinking on environment
As a local official in the early 2000s, Xi endorsed the concept of “green GDP”, which integrates the value of natural resources and the environment into GDP calculations.
He also penned a regular newspaper column, 22 of which discussed environmental protection – although “climate change” was never mentioned.
This focus carried over to China’s national agenda when Xi became president.
New research from the Asia Society Policy Institute tracked policies in which Xi is reported by state media to have “personally” taken action.
It found that environmental protection is one of six topics in which he is often said to have directly steered policymaking.
Such policies include guidelines to build a “Beautiful China”, the creation of an environmental protection inspection team and the “three-north shelterbelt” afforestation programme.
“It’s important to know what Xi’s priorities are because the top leader wields outsized influence in the Chinese political system,” Neil Thomas, Asia Society Policy Institute fellow and report co-author, told Carbon Brief.
Local policymakers are “more likely” to invest resources in addressing policies they know have Xi’s attention, to increase their chances for promotion, he added.
What about climate and energy?
However, the research noted, climate and energy policies have not been publicised as bearing Xi’s personal touch.
“I think Xi prioritises environmental protection more than climate change because reducing pollution is an issue of social stability,” Thomas said, noting that “smoggy skies and polluted rivers” were more visible and more likely to trigger civil society pushback than gradual temperature increases.
The paper also said topics might not be linked to Xi personally when they are “too technical” or “politically sensitive”.
For example, Xi’s landmark decision for China to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060 is widely reported as having only been made after climate modelling – facilitated by former climate envoy Xie Zhenhua – showed that this goal was achievable.
Prior to this, Xi had never spoken publicly about carbon neutrality.
Prof Alex Wang, a University of California, Los Angeles professor of law not involved in the research, noted that emphasising Xi’s personal attention may signal “top” political priorities, but not necessarily Xi’s “personal interests”.
By not emphasising climate, he said, Xi may be trying to avoid “pushing the system to overprioritise climate to the exclusion of the other priorities”.
There are other ways to know where climate ranks on the policy agenda, Thomas noted:
“Climate watchers should look at what Xi says, what Xi does and what policies Xi authorises in the name of the ‘central committee’. Is Xi talking more about climate? Is Xi establishing institutions and convening meetings that focus on climate? Is climate becoming a more prominent theme in top-level documents?”
Watch, read, listen
TRUMP EFFECT: The Columbia Energy Exchange podcast examined how pressure from US tariffs could affect India’s clean energy transition.
NAMIBIAN ‘DESTRUCTION’: The National Observer investigated the failure to address “human rights abuses and environmental destruction” claims against a Canadian oil company in Namibia.
‘RED AI’: The Network for the Digital Economy and the Environment studied the state of current research on “Red AI”, or the “negative environmental implications of AI”.
Coming up
- 17 August: Bolivian general elections
- 18-29 August: Preparatory talks on the entry into force of the “High Seas Treaty”, New York
- 18-22 August: Y20 Summit, Johannesburg
- 21 August: Advancing the “Africa clean air programme” through Africa-Asia collaboration, Yokohama
Pick of the jobs
- Lancaster Environment Centre, senior research associate: JUST Centre | Salary: £39,355-£45,413. Location: Lancaster, UK
- Environmental Justice Foundation, communications and media officer, Francophone Africa | Salary: XOF600,000-XOF800,000. Location: Dakar, Senegal
- Politico, energy & climate editor | Salary: Unknown. Location: Brussels, Belgium
- EnviroCatalysts, meteorologist | Salary: Unknown. Location: New Delhi, India
DeBriefed is edited by Daisy Dunne. Please send any tips or feedback to debriefed@carbonbrief.org.
This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s weekly DeBriefed email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.
The post DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report appeared first on Carbon Brief.
DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report
Climate Change
New York Already Denied Permits to These Gas Pipelines. Under Trump, They Could Get Greenlit
The specter of a “gas-for-wind” compromise between the governor and the White House is drawing the ire of residents as a deadline looms.
Hundreds of New Yorkers rallied against new natural gas pipelines in their state as a deadline loomed for the public to comment on a revived proposal to expand the gas pipeline that supplies downstate New York.
New York Already Denied Permits to These Gas Pipelines. Under Trump, They Could Get Greenlit
A “critical assessment” report commissioned by the Trump administration to justify a rollback of US climate regulations contains at least 100 false or misleading statements, according to a Carbon Brief factcheck involving dozens of leading climate scientists.
The report – “A critical review of impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the US climate” – was published by the US Department of Energy (DoE) on 23 July, just days before the government laid out plans to revoke a scientific finding used as the legal basis for emissions regulation.
The executive summary of the controversial report inaccurately claims that “CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed”.
It also states misleadingly that “excessively aggressive [emissions] mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial”.
Compiled in just two months by five “independent” researchers hand-selected by the climate-sceptic US secretary of energy Chris Wright, the document has sparked fierce criticism from climate scientists, who have pointed to factual errors, misrepresentation of research, messy citations and the cherry-picking of data.
Experts have also noted the authors’ track record of promoting views at odds with the mainstream understanding of climate science.
Wright’s department claims the report – which is currently open to public comment as part of a 30-day review – underwent an “internal peer-review period amongst [the] DoE’s scientific research community”.
The report is designed to provide a scientific underpinning to one flank of the Trump administration’s plans to rescind a finding that serves as the legal prerequisite for federal emissions regulation. (The second flank is about legal authority to regulate emissions.)
The “endangerment finding” – enacted by the Obama administration in 2009 – states that six greenhouse gases are contributing to the net-negative impacts of climate change and, thus, put the public in danger.
In a press release on 29 July, the US Environmental Protection Agency said “updated studies and information” set out in the new report would “challenge the assumptions” of the 2009 finding.
Carbon Brief asked a wide range of climate scientists, including those cited in the “critical review” itself, to factcheck the report’s various claims and statements.
The post Factcheck: Trump’s climate report includes more than 100 false or misleading claims appeared first on Carbon Brief.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-trumps-climate-report-includes-more-than-100-false-or-misleading-claims/
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change1 year ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Carbon Footprint1 year agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Why airlines are perfect targets for anti-greenwashing legal action
-
Renewable Energy2 months ago
US Grid Strain, Possible Allete Sale
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Some firms unaware of England’s new single-use plastic ban