The link between the two is becoming increasingly evident as the wealthiest countries and individuals continue to contribute disproportionately to global emissions, leaving the poorest to bear the brunt of the impacts. French economist Thomas Piketty has long been a leading voice in discussions on inequality, and in his latest work, he explores how these two critical issues intersect.

Piketty’s 2014 book Capital in the Twenty-First Century sparked a global conversation about wealth inequality, and now, in his new book Nature, Culture, and Inequality: A Comparative Historical Perspective, he turns his attention to how inequality is also central to understanding—and solving—the climate crisis. Piketty draws on extensive data to illustrate how the wealthiest nations and individuals are far more responsible for carbon emissions than poorer ones, making it impossible to tackle climate change without addressing this economic disparity.

The Inequality-Climate Connection
One of Piketty’s central arguments is that the richest 10% of people globally are responsible for nearly half of all carbon emissions. This disparity becomes even more glaring when focusing on the top 1%, who account for around 17% of global emissions. Meanwhile, the poorest people emit a fraction of these amounts yet are often the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change.

This imbalance, according to Piketty, must be at the heart of climate policy discussions. It's not just about reducing emissions overall but about how emissions reductions are distributed across different economic groups. Asking middle- and lower-income groups to bear the burden of climate action while the wealthiest continue to consume disproportionately is neither just nor politically feasible.

Piketty argues that to truly address the climate crisis, a radical change in how we approach both consumption and production is needed. And for this transformation to occur, those at the top must be willing to make greater sacrifices. "The richest individuals are often seen advising others on how to live more sustainably, while they continue to fly on private jets," he notes, highlighting the need for a fairer distribution of responsibility in addressing climate change.

Learning from History: Social Inequality and Change
Piketty is no stranger to big ideas about societal transformation. He draws parallels between the inequality of today and historical challenges, such as those addressed in the 20th century through collective efforts. In the past, societies successfully expanded access to health care and education by moving these critical areas out of the capitalist framework and into systems designed for the common good.

Piketty suggests that a similar approach is needed to tackle the climate crisis. He argues that just as we built public systems for education and health, we can develop sectors like energy and transportation outside the traditional profit-driven model. By doing so, we can ensure a more equitable distribution of resources and create systems that are better aligned with the urgent need to reduce emissions.

Historical examples, like Sweden's transformation in the early 20th century, give Piketty optimism. At the time, Sweden was one of Europe’s most unequal countries, with a political system that heavily favoured the wealthiest citizens. However, through collective mobilisation and the rise of social democratic values, Sweden was able to build a system that prioritised welfare and equality. Piketty believes similar collective action could help us address both inequality and climate change today.

The Role of Collective Action
A key takeaway from Piketty’s analysis is that collective action, not catastrophe, has historically driven the most significant social and economic changes. While environmental disasters may increase pressure for change, they are not enough on their own to spark the necessary transformations. Instead, societies must come together and mobilise to create systems that work for the common good.

Piketty points to the creation of non-profit and public systems in areas such as education, health care, and housing as examples of successful shifts away from profit-driven models. These systems have been instrumental in reducing inequality in many parts of the world, and they offer a blueprint for tackling climate change. The move towards decommodification—where essential services are removed from the capitalist market and provided as public goods—is, according to Piketty, a vital step in reducing both emissions and inequality.

He also emphasises the need to extend this approach to new areas of the economy, including energy and environmental conservation. Piketty believes that conserving forests and other natural resources should be treated as a public good rather than as a commodity to be exploited for profit. Just as we have decided that every child deserves access to education, society must decide that protecting the environment is a collective responsibility.

The Economic Argument for Clean Energy
One area where Piketty’s ideas align with current trends is in the economic argument for clean energy. Renewable energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels in many parts of the world, making the transition to a low-carbon economy not only environmentally necessary but also economically sound. However, other areas, such as forest conservation, remain more challenging to integrate into a profit-driven system.

Piketty argues that these efforts need to be removed from market forces altogether. Instead, democratic deliberation at the local, national, and international levels should determine what is most valuable to society. "We need to replace market valuation with political valuation," he suggests, stressing that public policy, rather than market forces, should drive decisions on environmental conservation.

Moving Beyond Market Forces
For Piketty, the challenge of addressing climate change while tackling inequality requires a fundamental shift in how we think about economic value. Market forces alone cannot solve the climate crisis because the market is not designed to account for the long-term benefits of environmental protection or the social costs of inequality. By moving key sectors of the economy—such as energy, transportation, and conservation—outside the capitalist framework, we can create systems that prioritise sustainability and fairness.

The examples of health and education provide a model for how this could work. Societies have already made the decision that access to these services is a public good, and now, few would argue for returning them to a purely profit-driven model. Piketty believes we must make similar decisions about the environment, ensuring that future generations have access to a habitable planet.

Ultimately, Piketty’s argument is a call for a more equitable and sustainable future, where the richest individuals and nations take on a larger share of the responsibility for addressing climate change. Only by tackling inequality head-on, he argues, can we hope to build a world that is both just and sustainable.