A study by the Institute for Applied Economic Research (Ipea) proposes the creation of a tax on the super-rich and a global minimum corporate tax to finance the payment of climate debt. The idea is that these resources will be allocated mainly to low-income countries and vulnerable populations.
The study Operationalizing climate justice: a proposal to quantify and repair climate debt was prepared by researcher Rodrigo Fracalossi, who bases his calculations on the equality per capita (EPC) approach, which measures how much each country has exceeded its “fair share” of emissions since 1990.
“This approach seeks to translate the notion of historical accountability for emissions into numbers. In other words, it is a way of operationalizing the norm of climate justice, showing who used more than their fair share of atmospheric space”, says Fracalossi. “The results show that several countries consumed much more than their carbon budgets.”
To keep global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (ºC) above pre-industrial levels, the world can emit a total of no more than 2.79 trillion tons of CO₂, according to calculations by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Accumulated emissions until 1989 were 1.43 trillion tons of CO₂. Thus, the remaining global carbon budget as of 1990 was 1.36 trillion tons of CO₂.
According to the survey, the United States is the country with the highest climate debt — around US$47.9 trillion, equivalent to 326% of its carbon budget. Brazil, considering emissions from deforestation, would have already consumed 168% of its limit.
The study proposes two main measures to finance the repair of these debts:
- A 2% annual tax on the wealth of billionaires and millionaires, which could generate up to US$390 billion per year.
- The global adoption of a minimum corporate tax of 15% on large multinational companies, in accordance with guidelines from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the G20, a group of the 20 largest economies in the world. This would bring in an additional US$192 billion annually in revenue.
“The climate transition needs to be financed fairly, and this means charging more to those who have benefited most and continue to benefit from carbon-based economies”, analyzes the researcher.
The resources raised could be used in climate mitigation and adaptation projects, such as the expansion of renewable energy, reforestation, resilient infrastructure and agricultural diversification.
Fracalossi highlights that market mechanisms, such as carbon credits, can contribute, but do not replace state action.
“Not even the fight against climate change, much less climate justice, will come only from market mechanisms. They can and should be used, but they will not solve the problem without government action towards the redistribution of resources”, says the researcher.
