Inequality at the Crossroad. The Emergence or the Socio-environmental Crisis

Climate has been one of the most decisive factors in the history of the planet and in the development of the human species and civilization. The way it continues to shape our societies, beliefs, and needs has led us to try to understand these phenomena: how do our social, economic, and historical conditions interact with the climate (and with each other), giving rise to processes that determine the health and well-being of our societies? This is a crossroads of the socio-environmental crisis.

Drought
Picture: UNDP Climate (CC BY-NC 2.0)

The planetary health perspective provides a useful framework for understanding these dynamics. It recognizes that human health directly depends on the planet’s natural systems (Whitmee et al., 2015) and that socio-environmental factors are intertwined in complex networks. These interactions can manifest in phenomena such as syndemics (Riojas-Rodríguez, Zúñiga-Bello & Schilmann, 2024) and in positive feedback loops where effects reinforce their own causes, as occurs with wealth accumulation (Li, Boghosian & Li, 2019; Boghosian & Börgers, 2023). Such processes can bring systems closer to tipping points and abrupt changes (Levy, 2005), highlighting the need to identify systemic interventions that allow for the construction of more just and resilient societies (Meadows, 1999).

“NATURAL DISASTERS” OR THE DISASTER OF INEQUALITY
The concept of a “natural disaster” is misleading as it obscures how processes of inequality amplify the vulnerability of certain populations (Chmutina & Von Mending, 2019). For example, in the summer of 2019, extreme heat waves were experienced all over the globe. While advanced health systems, early response mechanisms, and infrastructure in wealthy countries were able to prevent major impacts, in the global South the story was different. High proportions of informal and occupationally exposed workers, worse housing and infrastructure conditions, socioeconomic vulnerability, and lower response capacity led to a disproportionate increase in deaths and hospitalizations. This contrast reveals that disasters are not “natural.” Disasters occur when weather events (exacerbated by climate change) intersect with preexisting inequality and social vulnerability. Something that is merely uncomfortable for some can become a life threat to others.

Picture: OurWorldInData, 2024, https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2 (CC BY-NC 4.0)

DISASTERS OCCUR WHEN WEATHER EVENTS (EXACERBATED BY CLIMATE CHANGE) INTERSECT WITH PREEXISTING INEQUALITY AND SOCIAL VULNERABILITY

ECONOMIC INEQUALITY AT THE ROOT OF THE GLOBAL CRISIS
However, inequality not only determines who suffers and who does not, as a result of climate change. Inequality also determines responsibilities for its very origin. While countries like the United States, Belgium, Singapore, and the wealthy Gulf countries emit more than sixteen tons of carbon dioxide per capita, most countries in the global south emit less than four tons, yet they are the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change (figure 1). And here we encounter a first climate injustice.

Beyond the contrast between countries, economic inequality adds greater depth to the attribution of responsibilities. The richest ten percent of the world’s population is responsible for fifty percent of greenhouse gas emissions, while the poorest fifty percent only contributes eight percent (Khalfan et al., 2023). That ten percent of the highest polluters is not only spread across countries in the global north but is also found at the core of every country in the global south (figure 2). It is not necessarily those who travel by private jet—that is the one percent—but those who can afford an “imperial lifestyle”: a full tank of gasoline, imported orange juice at breakfast, beef for lunch, Ivorian chocolate, a new cellphone with cobalt from Congo and lithium from Chile, seasonal clothing, and occasional vacations abroad. The world on a platter to satisfy those Western consumption habits that many aspire to, regardless of the drought on this corner of the planet, the pollution in that river, the logging of that forest, or the exploitation of that worker. The second climate injustice is that machinery that organizes national and international markets, legislation, and enforcement and repression forces in the periphery to sustain the imperial lifestyle (Brand & Wissen, 2021).

Environmental degradation has been justified around the world in the name of development and economic growth. Communities affected by extractive, tourism, and industrial projects have been called “sacrifice zones.” Today, the energy transition is being used to justify the imposition of mining projects and the expropriation of land for renewable energies, disproportionately affecting indigenous territories and marginalized communities, and structuring a “green colonialism” in the name of sustainability (Zografos & Robbins, 2020). The implementation of “green” policies without perspectives of equity and justice has also left “obsolete” workers stranded, such as coal miners in the United States and farmers in Europe, triggering protests against climate action and fueling climate denialism and far-right movements (Helfenstein et al., 2024).

Thus, at first glance, the fight against climate change seems to be at odds with social and environmental justice. But as Richard Levins (2015) says, “when two justice movements come into conflict, none of them are asking enough.” We need to ask enough so that a real solution can actually arise. We need to articulate an economic model capable of fairly meeting the needs of all people within planetary boundaries.

Picture: Khalfan et al. (2023)

PLANETARY BOUNDARIES, LIMITS TO GROWTH
Since 2009, research in Earth system sciences has identified nine biophysical processes and systems that are involved in regulating the planet, known as the “planetary boundaries,” which maintain the conditions that have allowed human flourishing during the Holocene, such as climate, atmospheric composition, and ocean acidity [see box]. Each boundary has an identified risk threshold, the surpassing of which could trigger planetary tipping points capable of unleashing abrupt, irreversible, and cascading global changes, and reduce the planet’s habitability. This has happened in the past: during transitions between geological eras. Therefore, respecting planetary boundaries is an essential precondition for the development and health of human societies in our era, the Anthropocene. By 2023, six of the nine planetary boundaries had been exceeded, including not only climate change but also others such as biodiversity integrity, changes in land systems (including deforestation), nitrogen and phosphorus pollution (resulting mainly from intensive agriculture), and water depletion (Richardson et al., 2023). By 2025, seven of the nine have been exceeded. (Azote for Stockholm Resilience Centre, https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries.html).


The planetary boundaries framework can be considered one of the most important scientific advances in history, as it redefines our understanding of the Earth and our relationship with it, and provides and quantifies safe limits for change, pollution, and the exploitation of its resources by humans. From this framework, for example, the concept of the “doughnut economy” has emerged, which proposes that the global economy should be restructured with the goal of meeting a basic floor of development and social well-being without exceeding planetary boundaries, in what is called “the safe and just space for humanity” (figure 4).

Picture: Khalfan et al. (2023)

The quantification and monitoring of how well different countries align with this model represents a step in operationalizing these concepts. This has been done by estimating the national per capita ecological footprint for each boundary, as well as progress on the Sustainable Development Goals (Fanning et al., 2022). This allows us to identify what is the fair share for each citizen of the planet; who is consuming more than their share and who is consuming less. Consumption below the fair minimum translates into material deprivation and a deficiency in the social foundations of the doughnut. Consumption above the per capita planetary boundaries translates into ecological degradation of the planet and its instability, the consequences of which are externalized across other geographies and into the future. When we look at the situation of the safe and fair space for the doughnut in different countries, we notice that, although the ecological footprint of each country is usually directly related to its economy, the same does not necessarily apply to the social foundation.

The United States exceeds all per capita planetary boundaries without managing to satisfy the social foundation, something that Germany does achieve, albeit at the cost of exceeding several planetary boundaries. Mexico exceeds the same number of planetary boundaries as Germany, with serious deficiencies in the social foundation. However, national averages hide existing inequalities within each nation: if the enormous economy and ecological footprint of the United States fail to satisfy the social foundation for all its citizens, it is because its costs and benefits are not distributed equitably. Similarly, exceeding several planetary boundaries while facing deficiencies in health, equity, education, social support, and democracy in Mexico can be explained by the simultaneous existence of the most devastating poverty alongside the most opulent wealth within the same territory. On the other hand, although no country manages to fall within the safe and just space, countries like Vietnam, Nepal, and Costa Rica achieve multiple social successes with low environmental impact by combining efficient provision systems oriented towards sufficiency and equity, universal health and education policies even with modest incomes, predominantly low-carbon energy, conservation-oriented territorial governance, and still moderate per capita consumption. 

However, the imperfect and non-linear relationship between ecological footprint and social well-being is primarily mediated by economic growth, which demands energy and the transformation of nature into productive and commercial goods. Although the possibility of decoupling economic growth from environmental degradation (so-called “green growth”) has been theorized, empirical data show that currently, and even under optimistic projections of technological development, a complete decoupling between economic growth and the use of energy and natural resources is not possible (Haberl et al., 2020; Hickel, 2019; Kronenberg et al., 2024).

Picture: Sierra, 2021

EXCEEDING SEVERAL PLANETARY BOUNDARIES WHILE FACING DEFICIENCIES IN HEALTH, EQUITY, EDUCATION, SOCIAL SUPPORT, AND DEMOCRACY IN MEXICO CAN BE EXPLAINED BY THE SIMULTANEOUS EXISTENCE OF THE MOST DEVASTATING POVERTY ALONGSIDE THE MOST OPULENT WEALTH WITHIN THE SAME TERRITORY

This means that we only have one path left to eradicate poverty and hunger, and achieve health and well-being for all populations within planetary boundaries, and it is not “green growth”: it is the redistribution of wealth under a post-growth model, that is, a model oriented towards human needs and the well-being of all populations not through unlimited economic growth, but by cutting destructive or unnecessary forms of production —those that sustain the imperial lifestyle— to slow ecological degradation and redistribute resources to low- and middle-income populations, where growth is still needed (Hickel et al., 2022).

---