(Credit: © Aleksandr Zamuruev | Dreamstime.com)
TRONDHEIM, Norway — Surprising new research reveals that societies with higher levels of inequality actually produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions. The conclusion comes from a study that examined data from 170 countries over three decades.
For years, environmental activists and international organizations like the United Nations have championed the idea that reducing inequality is a win-win solution for addressing climate change. This perspective has become so entrenched that the UN Sustainable Development Goal number 10 specifically targets inequality between and within countries, partly based on the belief that inequitable development hinders environmental sustainability.
But what if this widely accepted wisdom is wrong?
‘A Faulty Premise’
The study, authored by Indra de Soysa from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology and published in the journal World Development, presents evidence that contradicts the prevailing narrative. After analyzing greenhouse gas emissions and renewable energy adoption from 1990 to 2020, de Soysa found that societies with greater economic inequality and inequitable access to political resources actually emit less carbon per capita and adopt green energy technologies at higher rates.
“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,” Professor de Soysa explains in a statement. “The idea that democracy is good for the climate is often ideologically driven, but this is based on a faulty premise.”
This counterintuitive finding doesn’t suggest we should champion inequality. Rather, it reveals a troubling conundrum: addressing inequality by improving incomes within and between countries may worsen the climate crisis given current technologies and consumption patterns. Researchers call it a “wicked problem.”
Why might more unequal societies have lower emissions? The answer lies in consumption patterns. In more equal societies, a larger share of the population enjoys higher levels of consumption, which translates to higher energy use and greater emissions. Conversely, in unequal societies, a smaller percentage of people engage in high-consumption lifestyles, while many others consume at much lower levels, resulting in lower overall emissions.
“If poor people are given better conditions, total consumption increases. As a result, emissions also increase,” de Soysa says.
Consider the stark contrast between industrialized democracies and Sub-Saharan Africa. In 2019, the average citizen in an industrialized democracy generated approximately 8 metric tons of CO2, while a Sub-Saharan African produced only 1.5 tons. If consumption levels were equalized through economic development, global emissions would increase dramatically.
It might seem counterintuitive, but research shows that when income is more even across a society, carbon emissions are significantly higher. (Photo by buradaki on Shutterstock)
The Wealth Effect: More Money, More Emissions
The data consistently show that what predicts higher emissions isn’t inequality but overall wealth. Higher per capita incomes are strongly associated with higher emissions, regardless of how that income is distributed.
“Increased per capita income in a country is clearly and unmistakably linked to higher carbon emissions,” notes de Soysa. The more money available in a society, the more it contributes to carbon emissions through increased consumption.
De Soysa further points out that “greater freedom leads to greater economic activity,” which increases both consumption and emissions from production. He uses a powerful example to illustrate this point: “Just imagine the day when Indians start consuming as much as the Chinese do.”
Challenging the Green Democracy Narrative
The research questions several common assumptions about climate politics. While wealthy individuals certainly consume more resources, the data indicate that societies with more egalitarian governance structures often struggle to implement environmentally friendly policies. This may be because democratic governments must balance the interests of many stakeholders, including workers in carbon-intensive industries who resist changes that threaten their livelihoods.
Another unexpected finding was that more equal societies had lower adoption rates of renewable energy. Looking at the percentage of renewable resources in total energy consumption, the study found that countries with higher inequality actually had higher shares of renewable energy.
“The countries with the greatest inequalities are also better at implementing greener energy technologies – not worse, as other theorists have assumed,” says de Soysa.
The Moral Dilemma: Equality vs. Environment
These findings present a profound ethical dilemma. Most people agree that reducing poverty and inequality are worthy goals, but achieving them through increased consumption could accelerate climate change.
Professor de Soysa suggests that technological innovation is crucial for resolving this dilemma. Developing and deploying clean technologies that allow for higher consumption without increased emissions could help resolve the tension between equity and environmental goals.
“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 says. However, he cautions that even technological solutions can be extremely slow to develop and implement, and they will create both winners and losers.
How Do We Tackle Climate Change and Inequality Together?
The study doesn’t suggest abandoning efforts to reduce inequality. Instead, it calls for recognizing the complexity of the relationship between social equity and environmental sustainability. Simple slogans like “eco-social contracts” and “new green deals” that promise win-win solutions may underestimate the difficulties involved.
For policymakers, these results pose difficult questions. How can societies reduce poverty and inequality while avoiding increased emissions? How can developing countries improve living standards without following the high-carbon path of industrialized nations? Climate policies that focus solely on production-side emissions without addressing consumption may miss a critical part of the equation.
There are no easy answers, but the research suggests that focusing on technological leapfrogging, changing consumption patterns, and rethinking how we measure prosperity might be more productive than assuming that equality and environmental sustainability automatically reinforce each other.
Paper Summary
Methodology
The research analyzed data from approximately 170 countries over a 30-year period (1990-2020), using the World Bank’s data on CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels, biomass, and cement manufacturing. The study focused primarily on per capita emissions rather than just emissions efficiency (CO2 per GDP), to reflect the actual climate impact regardless of economic output.
For measuring inequality, the research used the Gini coefficient, which is essentially a numerical scale from 0-1 that measures how evenly income is distributed in a country. A score of 0 would mean perfect equality (everyone has exactly the same income), while 1 would mean absolute inequality (one person has all the income). The study also used broader measures of equality in access to education, health services, and political power.
The analysis used statistical methods that account for differences between countries and changes over time, while controlling for factors like per capita GDP, urbanization, and democracy levels.
Results
The study found that higher inequality consistently linked with lower greenhouse gas emissions across multiple measurements. When a country had higher income inequality (measured by the Gini coefficient), its per capita CO2 emissions were about 21% lower on average. This pattern held true for different types of inequality, including unequal access to education, health services, and differences between ethnic groups.
Countries with higher inequality also tended to have higher shares of renewable energy in their total energy consumption. As expected, wealthier countries had higher emissions regardless of inequality levels, confirming that overall prosperity remains the primary driver of climate impact. Urban population percentage and democracy levels also matched with higher emissions, suggesting that economic, demographic, and political development all independently increase climate impact.
Limitations
While robust, the study has several limitations worth noting. First, it primarily analyzed territorial-based emissions rather than consumption-based emissions that account for trade flows, potentially overlooking carbon leakage through imported goods. Second, some data for horizontal (group-based) inequality had limited availability and required interpolation for missing years, potentially affecting the reliability of these specific measures.
The correspondence between different ethnic inequality metrics was surprisingly low, raising questions about which best captures the underlying concept. Additionally, while the fixed effects approach helps control for time-invariant country characteristics, it may not fully account for all omitted variables that change over time. The study also couldn’t establish strict causality through experimental methods, though it employed various robustness checks to strengthen causal inference.
Finally, while the research identifies patterns across countries, it doesn’t deeply explore the causal mechanisms or specific policy contexts that might explain why more unequal societies have lower emissions, leaving room for future research on these pathways
Discussion and Takeaways
The research challenges the common assumption that equality and environmental sustainability naturally go hand-in-hand. Instead, it reveals a complex reality where these goals may sometimes conflict. This doesn’t mean inequality is desirable, but rather that addressing both climate change and inequality requires sophisticated approaches that acknowledge potential trade-offs.
The findings highlight how consumption patterns drive emissions – as more people achieve higher living standards, environmental impact increases unless we can separate prosperity from carbon-intensive consumption. This emphasizes the need for technologies that allow higher living standards without higher emissions.
Rather than simply blaming elites for blocking climate action, the study shows that even egalitarian societies struggle with implementing green policies due to competing stakeholders. Addressing climate change while reducing inequality will require facing difficult trade-offs and developing solutions based on evidence rather than wishful thinking.
Funding and Disclosures
The research paper does not explicitly mention external funding sources or financial disclosures. The study was conducted by Indra de Soysa at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, but the paper does not indicate whether the work received specific grants or financial support from external organizations. Similarly, no conflicts of interest are disclosed in the document. The author acknowledges receiving helpful comments from anonymous reviewers and feedback from seminars at the Department of Sociology and Political Science at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, as well as from presentations at the International Studies Association’s annual conference in San Francisco and a regional conference in Rijeka, Croatia.
Publication Information
The study, titled “Green with envy? The effects of inequality and equity within and across social groups on greenhouse gas emissions, 1990–2020,” was authored by Indra de Soysa from the Norwegian University of Science & Technology’s Department of Sociology & Political Science. It was published in World Development (Volume 188, 2025) and is available as an open access article.